A couple of years ago I bought an Inspiron 8200 and paid _lots_ extra to get the 5400RPM 60Gb drive... which failed about 9 months later... I needed the laptop working ASAP - so a warranty repair was not an option... I replaced the drive with an identical one (for a fraction of the upgrade price a few months previously)... and this drive lasted about 9 months before failing even more spectacularly. I then replaced the drive with a Seagate Momentus one... and (touch wood) it's been good since... Noticiably quieter and it even feels a bit faster.
I'd be very wary about buying another Hitachi drive...
This reminds me of a comment in an A-Level Computing examiners report in the late 80s about a question asking for an explanation with examples.
The examiner complained that while surprisingly many students knew the right answer it was disappointing that the examples all referenced the concept in the context of microcomputers while the examiner had expected references to mainframe systems.
I remember at the time thinking "asshole!" The question didn't specify - how surprising should it have been that the students drew examples from their personal experience?
I concur with the many other posters who explain how this is a training issue which simply demands proper investment.
You haven't been denied the right to vote Neither, I suspect, have you. If you think it more important that your great, great grandmother was denied the vote than mine, then I consider that (a little) offensive. discriminated at the workplace Not personally, but I do not see negative discrimination as being something only experienced by women. I suspect however that discrimination against a women is likely to be labelled as sexist - even if the real motive was quite different. took lesser wages A large number of men and women take lesser wages for jobs that suit their lifestyle. If someone does an identical job to someone of a different gender but gets paid less then this is illegal (at least here in the UK) and can be redressed in the courts. get constanly objectified... all because you're a chick. No, but sometimes I feel as if I'm constantly stereotyped as an advantage-taking male - usually by people who don't know me from Adam. (Maybe Adam was a misogynist - he was before my time.)
We're not all crazy bitches. I have a (serious) related question (which has puzzled me for years.) The scenario: randomly chosen young men and women aged, say, 15 to 25 try to describe themselves in a positive light in no more than a sentence. Why will a significant proportion of the women reply "I'm mad, I am - absolutely crazy!" (or similar) whereas extremely few men will declare mental instability as one of their positive traits?
I've recently been amazed at how poor non-exchange systems are at managing shared address books. While I'm mostly pleased with Thunderbird, I am absolutely astounded that there is no way to update LDAP records from the address book.
Does anyone have a workable solution - or is this the biggest reason for corporate users to stick with Exchange?
I disagree that schools emphasising the value of comments will make students better at commenting. An analogy would be that the value of literature is already emphasised by schools - yet still relatively few students become great authors.
Yes... I can see that I could do this, but it is far from ideal as I'd have to pick some static cut-off points to partition the scores. The reason that ordering by score is so desirable is that it allows me to easily consider only the least-spammy messages I've chosen to filter from my inbox. I don't want to be forced to decide upon a granularity - which would be forced upon me if I decided to sort into different folders for each spam-level.
From your admission you sound as if you hadn't been all that sensible - in your partial defence at least you did it in a car that was fairly good at stopping. I can't defend undertaking, racing, tailgating etc, and high speed in heavy traffic is lunacy... but, in my opinion, the last of my concerns about your behaviour was your speed - I believe you should have been cautioned or charged with dangerous driving if anything.
He says that the majority of accidents are caused by speeding. Most accidents are caused by collisions - speed is almost meaningless without information about context. I think you are more likely to find a causal relationship from a combination of space visibility and speed (among other factors) - and to single out speed is positively stupid.
I'm not a great driver. speed is what I'd most likely be criticised about. I've had two shuts during the last 15 years... in both I was travelling at below 5mph. Speed obviously played a part (if the other vehicle wasn't moving there would have been no collision) - yet the collisions (in my opinion) would have occurred irrespective of speed limit.
Speed is essential in order to get from A to B... it is perfectly safe as long as no-one wants to go anywhere - but that isn't practical. In my opinion effort should be concentrated on better assisting practical drivers (who just want to get where they are going) with improved visibility at junctions; avoiding traffic jams and gridlocks (which always bring out the worst in people - especially when they are under the pressure of deadlines); road markings to assist newer drivers to judge safe distances to leave between cars on motorways; clear and sensible marking of speed limits and avoiding "crying wolf" with 30mph limits where 60mph would be equally safe. These cheap precautions would improve safety and would not unnecessarily burden the motorist. Demonising speed is retarded - It targets the professional driver travels on an empty motorway at 3am rather than the inexperienced loon showing off to his mates dodging in and out of traffic, undertaking and overtaking on blind bends. As police resources are diverted away from traffic duty much is lost - the most dangerous activities will go unchecked as long as they don't trigger the automated penalties while honest predominantly safe drivers will suffer heavy fines and risk their livelihoods along with their licences if inadvertently exceeding the prescribed limit in an unfamiliar city.
The idea that anti-speeding measures have reduced road-deaths is a sham... What evidence is there that this isn't actually a consequence of the fact that modern cars are designed with safety as a primary concern - whereas in the past people were willing to rely upon trying to avoid collisions?
Funny you should mention "Small Claims Court" - as I've recently looked into this for a friend who is being defrauded by a lettings agency illegally holding onto his deposit. In the UK the small claims court handles all claims worth less than £5000 - and costs are handled unusually. (Assuming a valid claim) it initially costs the victim £80 to file suit, and any legal advice is likely to be required to be paid up front too. On winning the filing fee can be reclaimed but not the cost of legal advice. The cost of transport to and from the court for the victim and witnesses as well as loss of earnings for time spent in court can be reclaimed - but this is capped at £50 per person per day in total. No claim can be made for consequential loss (i.e. time spent pursuing the case on the part of the victim.) In all practical terms this means that any organisation with on-staff legal representatives has absolutely no incentive to play fair - the most cost effective strategy is to ignore the victim and pay out if and only if the victim can muster a convincing claim in court. By limiting the extent of the recoverable costs, on one hand, the courts dramatically reduce their case load - on the "big dishonest guy" will typically continue unchecked with the little guy writing off their losses.
I've despised AOL ever since I tried their 28 day "no risk" free trial back in 1994-ish (I was in a bind and needed net access and their trial was the only option open to me.) I went from assuming it would give me net-access at noon to despair at their service at 2pm (having failed to download a 50K file over FTP) to cancelling my trial at 4pm after spending 2 hours on the phone to their customer services waiting in a call queue from hell. I was assured my trial would be terminated automatically if I didn't re-use my logon and password - so destroyed my only copies and forgot about it. A couple of months later I discovered that AOL had been drawing on my bank account WITHOUT MY PERMISSION for the service I had been assured was closed. I contacted AOL who insisted they had no record of billing me, so couldn't stop. I contacted my bank who pointed out that as AOL had taken SWITCH payment and not direct debit (as would have been in line with the bank's code of conduct for customer-absent regular billing) they couldn't help. As far as the bank was concerend either I made the purchase in person (and was liable) or it was criminal transaction - for which I was liable. To make matters worse my bank would not arbitrate the dispute as their policy precluded investigations where each charge is small-value... a fact I suspect AOL were aware. I was forced to declare my switch card stolen and suffer a week without access to my account... my only course of action to recover the stolen money would have been a private civil lawsuit against AOL - which, I'm sad to say, I didn't feel wealthy enough to bring.
These days I try to warn others that AOL CAN'T BE TRUSTED instead.
"like to support the NO2ID campaign" - yeah I see your point. "Like to" is different from "do support" but it is clumsy language. It's more than clumsy language... I'd like to support the petition - nothing more, nothing less. I agree that the issue is likely only one of presentation - however - in a media battle presentation _is_ everything. Yeah, if we could get anyone to take notice. Ironic really I think No2ID's position would be substantially improved if this legislation is rejected by MPs as any subsequent manoeuvres would likely be seen as more newsworthy. The web-sites you pointed me at were interesting but do not give a professional impression which damages their credibility... which is a shame. The Spyblog is interesting in terms of subject matter - however it falls short... Both No2ID and Spyblog both limit themselves as clearly aiming to represent an opinion rather than report the under-publicised facts. I'd like to see a balanced site where ID card supporters are invited to justify their claims, as well as ID card detractors to refute those claims. The strength of the WWW is that it presents an opportunity for individuals to pool their knowledge and refine their arguments... I suspect such a site represents the best home to seed a widespread change in public opinion.
In the UK, when somebody files a lawsuit and loses, not only do they have to pay for their own court expenses, but also those of the defendant.
I've lived all my life in the UK and I used to believe that. It isn't strictly true... For example in civil cases (such as the fraudulent retention of deposits etc.) where the dispute is over a sum less than £5000 the only legal provision is the "Small Claims Court" - for which the victim must pay an up-front £80 filing fee (recoverable on winning), but no other legal fees are recoverable. Damages can be awarded to cover travel expenses and loss of earnings for the victim and witnesses on the day(s) they are in court- however this is capped at £50 per person per day. Interest may be recovered on the amount owed. However, in stark contrast to the situation for companies (who are entitled to interest 30 days after payment was due) individuals are only entitled to interest after they file suit - and then at a substantially lower rate.
You are dead wrong that No2ID does not consider your privacy. However, we are a tiny group with no money who are fighting the Government, the European Commission, the ICAO, BBC bias, the computer consultancies etc etc.
Please don't be offended... I've reason to doubt neither your character nor No2ID's. I realise that there is a strong lobby for ID cards - and I have respect for what I've seen so far. I intended my comments as constructive feedback... I consider myself a cynic - on one hand I distrust those pushing IDs - on the other I'm cautious about associating myself with an organisation whose strategy is not yet clear.
My suggestion (in order to garner maximum popular appeal) is to welcome support however it is offered and to avoid at all costs the impression that, for example, signing a petition will be used to leverage future support for other activism. A perception of public apathy will assure the failure of No2ID. In my opinion political apathy arises to some extent as a result of the bundling of ideas - the more ideas the more likely one of them is considered unacceptable - and from a practical perspective the more likely one of them is ill conceived and likely to offer political opponents a weakness to exploit.
If No2ID is to succeed it must play a tight hand - an impeccable image and media exposure are crucial. If No2ID believes important factual information is being suppressed by the media maybe a blog similar to groklaw.net could go some way to redress the balance. I am sure there are lazy journalists - if all the leg-work is done I'm sure it will receive wider coverage.
This petition does not join you to No2ID, it says nothing about your support for No2ID and No2ID will never claim you do. What they would like to do though is keep you informed about other petitions, local groups, what the government is up to etc.
For example, even if we block the Bill, Blair has promised to introduce the same database via the "royal prerogative" that covers e-passports.
THAT is newsworthy. If backed with credible evidence that would be a dynamite headline. If Blair makes a threat like that before parliament has voted it shows two things:
That Blair considers it likely that over half the MPs will oppose the bill.
That Blair does not intend to respect the democratic process.
Both of these play straight into the hands of the National ID opposition.
The No2ID campaign is a fast moving campaign. We don't want people to feel that signing a petition along with a 9,999 others is enough to stop a government intent on creating a surveillance state.
I understand what you are saying... I accept that I could cancel the newsletter as soon as I get the first one... What I find silly is that a group whose purpose it is to lobby in defence of privacy does not consider the privacy of those signing the petition as being of paramount importance. I was 90% sure this was an oversight... though now I'm less sure. I don't want to "join" an organisation based upon one policy; I am not willing to lend my name in support of a groups currently undeclared tactics. I _AM_ willing to sign a closed petition where I agree 100% with the declaration. I see an ironic analogy between "if you sign up you can cancel later" and the ID card defence that "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about." If I become a member of a group I tacitly support the statements made by the group - that requires a far higher level of confidence than offering support for a closed statement. I would like to support this petition but I would also like it to be absolutely obvious that my privacy is being respected. I admit that this may sound pedantic - but when much of the substance of the petition concerns privacy, I feel my privacy is something that it would be better to get right at the outset.
I can see no way I could have better indicated my lack of support for the candidates? I thought it's possible to cast a no-vote in which case nobody gets your vote instead of the eventual winner. The choices are
Cast a vote for a valid candidate.
Mess up your ballet paper so it can't be counted for any candidate but is recorded as "spoilt"
Don't attend.
The practical consequences of 2 and 3 are identical - and for those who spoil (option 2) this is indistinguishable from someone who simply fails to fill in their voting card legibly.
So uncheck the box saying that you want to receive the newsletter.
The only options are:
Sign up for newletter & become a member.
I am already a member.
I am not a member and I do not want to sign up for a newsletter. I was commenting that the check box you allude to was NOT PRESENT.
And if you don't vote your vote goes to the winning party, so go cast a no-vote because you my friend have just voted labour three times.
Whoops - my mistake - that should have been in the last 4 general elections (I didn't vote in 1992 either) - yet I have not once voted for Blair. On one occasion the Conservatives benefited indirectly from my choice and on three occasions Labour did. Unfortunately, short of forming my own party, I fail to see how I could have more positively influenced any of these results. I can see no way I could have better indicated my lack of support for the candidates?
And what is my "goal"? Given the current circumstances it seems extraordinarily unlikely that dependence on private vehicles will decrease let alone be eliminated. I am indifferent here and feel the green lobby have been hoodwinked into being car-haters. If private vehicles best resolve the transportation problem then every effort should be made to ensure they are as clean and efficient as possible. It does not follow that those for whom a car is the only viable option should be subject to draconian surveillance, nor does it follow that it is a good idea to tax by the mile rather than by use of resources (for example fuel taxes); nor is it sensible to do this using a strategy which I guarantee would prove an administrative nightmare costing the British public billions of pounds which could otherwise be spent on productive schemes to improve quality of life for everyone. My goal is to highlight the fact that the only "benefit" from per-mile charging is to collect substantial information about individuals (at the public's substantial expense) and that such information would then ripe for abuse by anyone who has access.
There is no way to formally record that none of the candidates adequately represented me. No matter what intellectual slogan I sprawl across the ballot paper, at the count, this simply gets recorded as "spoilt" hence rendering the activity utterly futile.
If you want to claim that I am apathetic you should charge me with failing to stand as an independent candidate. In that respect, I admit, I could be seen as lacking interest/concern... Conversely I find it insulting to assume that I am disinterested or indifferent when compared to someone who either spoilt their ballot or selected a candidate.
The harsh truth is that there is no straightforward way to vote for democratic reform.
>> I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals. Well done, you're just over a month late.
Conversely, you might choose that I'm just under 5 years early... If you seriously expect me to believe that this scheme will be running within 5 years - then thanks for amusing me. I don't think I missed the boat... I considered my position extremely carefully:
I'm afraid I consider that counter productive... If I want my views to be taken seriously, my signature must be verifiable. If a politician were faced with a confrontational petition where names or addresses were invalid then this would have a detrimental effect on the political message. I do not consider it acceptable for myself to be evasive and provide false information - especially when I am protesting about a dishonesty of misleading propaganda surrounding invasive policies which are not in the public interest.
Slashdot Mirror
You should watch "Twin Town"
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0120394/
It is hilarious (IMHO) as every character uses the same four letter word in almost every sentence.
The article says : achieved data rates up to 240 megabits per second
Now either they acheived 240Mbps, or they didn't.
I will give you a present of up to one billion dollars. Puhlease!
A couple of years ago I bought an Inspiron 8200 and paid _lots_ extra to get the 5400RPM 60Gb drive... which failed about 9 months later... I needed the laptop working ASAP - so a warranty repair was not an option... I replaced the drive with an identical one (for a fraction of the upgrade price a few months previously)... and this drive lasted about 9 months before failing even more spectacularly. I then replaced the drive with a Seagate Momentus one... and (touch wood) it's been good since... Noticiably quieter and it even feels a bit faster.
I'd be very wary about buying another Hitachi drive...
This reminds me of a comment in an A-Level Computing examiners report in the late 80s about a question asking for an explanation with examples.
The examiner complained that while surprisingly many students knew the right answer it was disappointing that the examples all referenced the concept in the context of microcomputers while the examiner had expected references to mainframe systems.
I remember at the time thinking "asshole!" The question didn't specify - how surprising should it have been that the students drew examples from their personal experience?
I concur with the many other posters who explain how this is a training issue which simply demands proper investment.
You haven't been denied the right to vote
Neither, I suspect, have you. If you think it more important that your great, great grandmother was denied the vote than mine, then I consider that (a little) offensive.
discriminated at the workplace
Not personally, but I do not see negative discrimination as being something only experienced by women. I suspect however that discrimination against a women is likely to be labelled as sexist - even if the real motive was quite different.
took lesser wages
A large number of men and women take lesser wages for jobs that suit their lifestyle. If someone does an identical job to someone of a different gender but gets paid less then this is illegal (at least here in the UK) and can be redressed in the courts.
get constanly objectified... all because you're a chick.
No, but sometimes I feel as if I'm constantly stereotyped as an advantage-taking male - usually by people who don't know me from Adam. (Maybe Adam was a misogynist - he was before my time.)
We're not all crazy bitches.
I have a (serious) related question (which has puzzled me for years.) The scenario: randomly chosen young men and women aged, say, 15 to 25 try to describe themselves in a positive light in no more than a sentence. Why will a significant proportion of the women reply "I'm mad, I am - absolutely crazy!" (or similar) whereas extremely few men will declare mental instability as one of their positive traits?
Apparently I should be "Frustrated" if I were my own boss.
I've recently been amazed at how poor non-exchange systems are at managing shared address books. While I'm mostly pleased with Thunderbird, I am absolutely astounded that there is no way to update LDAP records from the address book.
Does anyone have a workable solution - or is this the biggest reason for corporate users to stick with Exchange?
I disagree that schools emphasising the value of comments will make students better at commenting. An analogy would be that the value of literature is already emphasised by schools - yet still relatively few students become great authors.
Yes... I can see that I could do this, but it is far from ideal as I'd have to pick some static cut-off points to partition the scores. The reason that ordering by score is so desirable is that it allows me to easily consider only the least-spammy messages I've chosen to filter from my inbox. I don't want to be forced to decide upon a granularity - which would be forced upon me if I decided to sort into different folders for each spam-level.
I wish I could better manage less-standard header fields in the message list in Thunderbird. I recently posted this question to Mozillazine:
7 61
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=294
Can anyone tell me if this kind of Spamassassin integration is possible?
From your admission you sound as if you hadn't been all that sensible - in your partial defence at least you did it in a car that was fairly good at stopping. I can't defend undertaking, racing, tailgating etc, and high speed in heavy traffic is lunacy... but, in my opinion, the last of my concerns about your behaviour was your speed - I believe you should have been cautioned or charged with dangerous driving if anything.
He says that the majority of accidents are caused by speeding.
Most accidents are caused by collisions - speed is almost meaningless without information about context. I think you are more likely to find a causal relationship from a combination of space visibility and speed (among other factors) - and to single out speed is positively stupid.
I'm not a great driver. speed is what I'd most likely be criticised about. I've had two shuts during the last 15 years... in both I was travelling at below 5mph. Speed obviously played a part (if the other vehicle wasn't moving there would have been no collision) - yet the collisions (in my opinion) would have occurred irrespective of speed limit.
Speed is essential in order to get from A to B... it is perfectly safe as long as no-one wants to go anywhere - but that isn't practical. In my opinion effort should be concentrated on better assisting practical drivers (who just want to get where they are going) with improved visibility at junctions; avoiding traffic jams and gridlocks (which always bring out the worst in people - especially when they are under the pressure of deadlines); road markings to assist newer drivers to judge safe distances to leave between cars on motorways; clear and sensible marking of speed limits and avoiding "crying wolf" with 30mph limits where 60mph would be equally safe. These cheap precautions would improve safety and would not unnecessarily burden the motorist. Demonising speed is retarded - It targets the professional driver travels on an empty motorway at 3am rather than the inexperienced loon showing off to his mates dodging in and out of traffic, undertaking and overtaking on blind bends. As police resources are diverted away from traffic duty much is lost - the most dangerous activities will go unchecked as long as they don't trigger the automated penalties while honest predominantly safe drivers will suffer heavy fines and risk their livelihoods along with their licences if inadvertently exceeding the prescribed limit in an unfamiliar city.
The idea that anti-speeding measures have reduced road-deaths is a sham... What evidence is there that this isn't actually a consequence of the fact that modern cars are designed with safety as a primary concern - whereas in the past people were willing to rely upon trying to avoid collisions?
Or... do you just enjoy being frank with your friends?
Funny you should mention "Small Claims Court" - as I've recently looked into this for a friend who is being defrauded by a lettings agency illegally holding onto his deposit.
In the UK the small claims court handles all claims worth less than £5000 - and costs are handled unusually. (Assuming a valid claim) it initially costs the victim £80 to file suit, and any legal advice is likely to be required to be paid up front too. On winning the filing fee can be reclaimed but not the cost of legal advice. The cost of transport to and from the court for the victim and witnesses as well as loss of earnings for time spent in court can be reclaimed - but this is capped at £50 per person per day in total. No claim can be made for consequential loss (i.e. time spent pursuing the case on the part of the victim.) In all practical terms this means that any organisation with on-staff legal representatives has absolutely no incentive to play fair - the most cost effective strategy is to ignore the victim and pay out if and only if the victim can muster a convincing claim in court. By limiting the extent of the recoverable costs, on one hand, the courts dramatically reduce their case load - on the "big dishonest guy" will typically continue unchecked with the little guy writing off their losses.
HERE, HERE!
I've despised AOL ever since I tried their 28 day "no risk" free trial back in 1994-ish (I was in a bind and needed net access and their trial was the only option open to me.) I went from assuming it would give me net-access at noon to despair at their service at 2pm (having failed to download a 50K file over FTP) to cancelling my trial at 4pm after spending 2 hours on the phone to their customer services waiting in a call queue from hell. I was assured my trial would be terminated automatically if I didn't re-use my logon and password - so destroyed my only copies and forgot about it. A couple of months later I discovered that AOL had been drawing on my bank account WITHOUT MY PERMISSION for the service I had been assured was closed. I contacted AOL who insisted they had no record of billing me, so couldn't stop. I contacted my bank who pointed out that as AOL had taken SWITCH payment and not direct debit (as would have been in line with the bank's code of conduct for customer-absent regular billing) they couldn't help. As far as the bank was concerend either I made the purchase in person (and was liable) or it was criminal transaction - for which I was liable. To make matters worse my bank would not arbitrate the dispute as their policy precluded investigations where each charge is small-value... a fact I suspect AOL were aware. I was forced to declare my switch card stolen and suffer a week without access to my account... my only course of action to recover the stolen money would have been a private civil lawsuit against AOL - which, I'm sad to say, I didn't feel wealthy enough to bring.
These days I try to warn others that AOL CAN'T BE TRUSTED instead.
"like to support the NO2ID campaign" - yeah I see your point. "Like to" is different from "do support" but it is clumsy language.
It's more than clumsy language... I'd like to support the petition - nothing more, nothing less. I agree that the issue is likely only one of presentation - however - in a media battle presentation _is_ everything.
Yeah, if we could get anyone to take notice. Ironic really
I think No2ID's position would be substantially improved if this legislation is rejected by MPs as any subsequent manoeuvres would likely be seen as more newsworthy.
The web-sites you pointed me at were interesting but do not give a professional impression which damages their credibility... which is a shame. The Spyblog is interesting in terms of subject matter - however it falls short... Both No2ID and Spyblog both limit themselves as clearly aiming to represent an opinion rather than report the under-publicised facts. I'd like to see a balanced site where ID card supporters are invited to justify their claims, as well as ID card detractors to refute those claims. The strength of the WWW is that it presents an opportunity for individuals to pool their knowledge and refine their arguments... I suspect such a site represents the best home to seed a widespread change in public opinion.
In the UK, when somebody files a lawsuit and loses, not only do they have to pay for their own court expenses, but also those of the defendant.
I've lived all my life in the UK and I used to believe that. It isn't strictly true... For example in civil cases (such as the fraudulent retention of deposits etc.) where the dispute is over a sum less than £5000 the only legal provision is the "Small Claims Court" - for which the victim must pay an up-front £80 filing fee (recoverable on winning), but no other legal fees are recoverable. Damages can be awarded to cover travel expenses and loss of earnings for the victim and witnesses on the day(s) they are in court- however this is capped at £50 per person per day. Interest may be recovered on the amount owed. However, in stark contrast to the situation for companies (who are entitled to interest 30 days after payment was due) individuals are only entitled to interest after they file suit - and then at a substantially lower rate.
All is not quite how it seems.
Please don't be offended... I've reason to doubt neither your character nor No2ID's. I realise that there is a strong lobby for ID cards - and I have respect for what I've seen so far. I intended my comments as constructive feedback... I consider myself a cynic - on one hand I distrust those pushing IDs - on the other I'm cautious about associating myself with an organisation whose strategy is not yet clear.
My suggestion (in order to garner maximum popular appeal) is to welcome support however it is offered and to avoid at all costs the impression that, for example, signing a petition will be used to leverage future support for other activism. A perception of public apathy will assure the failure of No2ID. In my opinion political apathy arises to some extent as a result of the bundling of ideas - the more ideas the more likely one of them is considered unacceptable - and from a practical perspective the more likely one of them is ill conceived and likely to offer political opponents a weakness to exploit.
If No2ID is to succeed it must play a tight hand - an impeccable image and media exposure are crucial. If No2ID believes important factual information is being suppressed by the media maybe a blog similar to groklaw.net could go some way to redress the balance. I am sure there are lazy journalists - if all the leg-work is done I'm sure it will receive wider coverage.
This petition does not join you to No2ID, it says nothing about your support for No2ID and No2ID will never claim you do. What they would like to do though is keep you informed about other petitions, local groups, what the government is up to etc.
http://www.no2id-petition.net/
I beg to differ... Read the radio button text immediately above the submit button.
For example, even if we block the Bill, Blair has promised to introduce the same database via the "royal prerogative" that covers e-passports.
THAT is newsworthy. If backed with credible evidence that would be a dynamite headline. If Blair makes a threat like that before parliament has voted it shows two things:
Both of these play straight into the hands of the National ID opposition.
The No2ID campaign is a fast moving campaign. We don't want people to feel that signing a petition along with a 9,999 others is enough to stop a government intent on creating a surveillance state.
I understand what you are saying... I accept that I could cancel the newsletter as soon as I get the first one...
What I find silly is that a group whose purpose it is to lobby in defence of privacy does not consider the privacy of those signing the petition as being of paramount importance. I was 90% sure this was an oversight... though now I'm less sure. I don't want to "join" an organisation based upon one policy; I am not willing to lend my name in support of a groups currently undeclared tactics. I _AM_ willing to sign a closed petition where I agree 100% with the declaration.
I see an ironic analogy between "if you sign up you can cancel later" and the ID card defence that "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry about." If I become a member of a group I tacitly support the statements made by the group - that requires a far higher level of confidence than offering support for a closed statement. I would like to support this petition but I would also like it to be absolutely obvious that my privacy is being respected. I admit that this may sound pedantic - but when much of the substance of the petition concerns privacy, I feel my privacy is something that it would be better to get right at the outset.
I thought it's possible to cast a no-vote in which case nobody gets your vote instead of the eventual winner.
The choices are
The practical consequences of 2 and 3 are identical - and for those who spoil (option 2) this is indistinguishable from someone who simply fails to fill in their voting card legibly.
The only options are:
I am not a member and I do not want to sign up for a newsletter. I was commenting that the check box you allude to was NOT PRESENT.
And if you don't vote your vote goes to the winning party, so go cast a no-vote because you my friend have just voted labour three times.
Whoops - my mistake - that should have been in the last 4 general elections (I didn't vote in 1992 either) - yet I have not once voted for Blair. On one occasion the Conservatives benefited indirectly from my choice and on three occasions Labour did. Unfortunately, short of forming my own party, I fail to see how I could have more positively influenced any of these results. I can see no way I could have better indicated my lack of support for the candidates?
And what is my "goal"?
Given the current circumstances it seems extraordinarily unlikely that dependence on private vehicles will decrease let alone be eliminated. I am indifferent here and feel the green lobby have been hoodwinked into being car-haters. If private vehicles best resolve the transportation problem then every effort should be made to ensure they are as clean and efficient as possible. It does not follow that those for whom a car is the only viable option should be subject to draconian surveillance, nor does it follow that it is a good idea to tax by the mile rather than by use of resources (for example fuel taxes); nor is it sensible to do this using a strategy which I guarantee would prove an administrative nightmare costing the British public billions of pounds which could otherwise be spent on productive schemes to improve quality of life for everyone.
My goal is to highlight the fact that the only "benefit" from per-mile charging is to collect substantial information about individuals (at the public's substantial expense) and that such information would then ripe for abuse by anyone who has access.
There is no way to formally record that none of the candidates adequately represented me. No matter what intellectual slogan I sprawl across the ballot paper, at the count, this simply gets recorded as "spoilt" hence rendering the activity utterly futile.
If you want to claim that I am apathetic you should charge me with failing to stand as an independent candidate. In that respect, I admit, I could be seen as lacking interest/concern... Conversely I find it insulting to assume that I am disinterested or indifferent when compared to someone who either spoilt their ballot or selected a candidate.
The harsh truth is that there is no straightforward way to vote for democratic reform.
How often does parliament vote to reduce its powers?
Politicians will vote either to increase or reduce governmental control - whichever best facilitates their personal goals.
This legislation is being pushed now. It might not impact you for five years, but you're too late to vote against it.
In principle it would not be too late to have the mistake repealed.
Tell me, did you spoil your ballot paper?
No. I saw no advantage in suggesting that I might be illiterate or incapable of following instructions.
>> I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals.
Well done, you're just over a month late.
Conversely, you might choose that I'm just under 5 years early... If you seriously expect me to believe that this scheme will be running within 5 years - then thanks for amusing me.
I don't think I missed the boat... I considered my position extremely carefully:
http://www.notapathetic.com/comments/496
My problem was the lack of credible candidates.
May I offer a suggestion? Use a fake address...
I'm afraid I consider that counter productive... If I want my views to be taken seriously, my signature must be verifiable. If a politician were faced with a confrontational petition where names or addresses were invalid then this would have a detrimental effect on the political message. I do not consider it acceptable for myself to be evasive and provide false information - especially when I am protesting about a dishonesty of misleading propaganda surrounding invasive policies which are not in the public interest.