The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt.
Adapt to what? I'm British and lived here all my life, and I'm not going to "adapt" to be like a BNP supporter...
I strongly disagree that the Government should do what the BNP wants, just because the BNP might respond violently in future. How is that any different to giving into the religious terrorists?
The political correctness of the British government
What political correctness?
There are concerns about religious fundamentalism, sure. We still have Church leaders given seats in the House of Lords, and a Government that supports segregation via faith schools. But no, you were probably only talking about one particular religion?
Indeed. Although the IWF were stupid enough to think that they could get away with censoring Wikipedia pages (perhaps it was a test to see if they could get away with it?) The IWF backed down, but how many wrongly blocked pages on less popular sites go unnoticed? (The Wikipedia case was only noticed because their method of blocking caused problems for anyone in the UK accessing any Wikipedia page, and the admins noticed this problem.)
The Government have repeatedly told the ISPs that if they don't do it "voluntarily", they'll pass a law forcing them to do it. And from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7904607.stm , Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."
Yes, they're so far "only" at 95%, but that just means they're not all the way there yet. It is Government mandated though.
It's the worst of both worlds. We're being forced into it by the Government, but because it's handled by a non-Government entity, there's no oversight or right of appeal, and the Government just say "Oh it's nothing to do with us, the ISPs 'chose' to do this".
But yes - there's the Internet Watch Foundation (which also crowd sources its censorship - their website has a big red button for you to report stuff), which censors blocked webpages for about 95% of UK users (a few ISPs have yet to implement it, but the Government wants it to be mandatory for all). Allegedly it's only for "potential" child pr0n, but we know from the Wikipedia-censorship episode just how broadly they interpret that.
For anything else, it seems the Government is so far preferring to take down the source, and/or criminalise possession of the material.
Just to add some perspective on the US cost, note that the US contribution is about $500 million - also remember the LHC has been constructed over about a 15 year period I believe, so on average that's a yearly cost of $33 million. For comparison, the US yearly military budget is over half a trillion dollars.
Alternatively, based on estimates of the cost of the Iraq War, of $2-3 billion a week, the entire worldwide cost of the LHC over 15 years is about 3-4 weeks in Iraq...
You're right, although the article is then more vague on the matter:
Based on the new guidelines, it appears that the static parts of a Facebook page, like an employee's personal profile, fall under the FINRA rules that govern firms' marketing to the public, with the result that they need formal approval before being posted. The dynamic, conversational parts of a page--specifically, Facebook's wall, a blog's comments section, and other places where users interact with each other--could constitute a "public appearance" on behalf of the firm, which means posts don't have to be approved beforehand, but "firms must supervise these interactive electronic communications under NASD Rule 3010 in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that they do not violate the content requirements of FINRA's communications rules."
Does this just mean "posts that are giving advice", or any content?
Now, it only seems to refer to Facebook pages etc where the person identifies themselves as an employee of the firm (see the previous paragraph to the one I quoted), so it ought to be easily fixed by simply not doing that. But there are plenty of people on Facebook who do think nothing of listing who they work for in their profile (or doing it implicitly, such as "fanning" their company, or joining a network for their company), and may not realise that this means their Facebook page is now subject to these guidelines.
I don't see why multiple computers are annoying? The benefits outweight the disadvantages. Come on, this is Slashdot - doesn't everyone have at least three computers?;)
I have a desktop and a laptop, and I may get a netbook for travel purposes, as they're so cheap. In fact the cost of my laptop and a netbook is less than the cheapest Mac laptop I could find.
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net.
Completely false.
You seem to forget that computers get faster with time, exponentially. Today's netbooks are more powerful than laptops of a few years ago.
The same claims could be made of desktops - they're more powerful than laptops, at a cheaper price. But the fact remains is that laptops now outsell desktops, because today's laptops are more than enough for most people.
And how long do you think people are going to still be using DVDs for? You might as well sneer at laptops not including a floppy drive... Given the popularity of video mp3 players, it seems people are already preferring DVD-less solutions.
The extra cost is irrelevant - the amount of money used is the same, it's just a question of where it comes from. With my suggestion, it could ultimately come through taxes, but it would be spread across the entire population. With your system, most people don't pay, except the unfortunate ones who are stung with massive losses. Which is fairer? Which would give better peace of mind for people?
Employers are legally required to allow employees the opportunity to vote, even it means they cannot work while they do so. They are not required to pay hourly workers for time missed voting. Salaried workers still have to get their work done, even if they take time off to vote. My analogy is valid.
Bad analogy - voting is a choice. It also doesn't prevent your ability to work (anytime taken off would not be affecting someone's ability to eat or pay bills - hell, I manage to vote on my way to work, takes about 15 mins - can I do that with jury service?).
Preserving your income is irrelevant.
Yes, it's fine if people starve to death or lose their homes.
This is done to avoid bias because courts costs would skyrocket and professionals would almost never be chosen due to the cost.
We have lawyers being paid vast amounts, yet you whine about paying a basic amount to the most important people in the courtroom? There would be no choice, if it's random. And at the least, even if salaries aren't preserved, you can still pay people's living expenses.
As for bias, the current system biases against people who would lose out - they'll do their best to get out of it, leaving only the people who want to be on jury because they have an axe to grind.
Meanwhile, if you work on salary, you are obligated to get your job done.
Exactly my point. A full day on jury, then a full day on work - is having members of the jury who've had no sleep and are stressed and overworked a good thing? As well as worrying about whether they have enough money to pay the bills?
I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to my point. Voting has nothing to do with jury duty, nor should it.
The problem is that there are plenty of other titans in the mobile industry (most notably, Nokia), who are completely ignored. There are tablets and other portable devices around.
Actually I would say it's the opposite with Apple, they're more popular with geeks.
You have a lot of geeks using Macs, but they're a niche in the total market. Same with the Iphone - praised endlessly here on Slashdot, by people deluded enough to think it's the market leader, but in the real world over 95% of people are using non-Apple phones.
So why assume Data uses every single operation for a particular thought? The point is, we can't really compare vague things like operations per seconds.
Plus... electronics are faster.
Since we haven't yet made human level AI, even at a very slow speed, I'm not sure how we can compare?
Bad analogy - voting is a choice. It also doesn't prevent your ability to work.
Thankfully most employers will give people paid leave (without using up holiday) during jury service. But I have wondered how self-employed people are supposed to cope, or employees where they don't get paid - I mean, people still need to eat, and pay their bills. If "It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0." was really true, then preserving your income would be guaranteed, for all people.
Other issues are where employees are pressured to still do work (which ought to be outright illegal, but that doesn't stop it happening).
If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases
That's speculation. But it also misses the point. The whole point for jury duty (and indeed, the argument for it being compulsory), is it's a random selection. As soon as you have a system biased towards certain people, then that is a bad thing - even if you try to speculate possible positive aspects of that bias.
Internet and mobile phone use is far more than what people use TV for. For many people, it forms their business, family and social communication; for dealing with companies (everything from paying bills, to ordering things); and for people's livelihoods (especially for self-employed people, since the state expects jurors to work for nothing; they still need to pay for food and rent/mortgage).
From TFA, I believe it's only talking about using these things to discuss or research the case ("The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated."), and not a blanket ban (which would be absurd and draconian).
Although the article is rather badly worded - the paragraph "The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone..." could imply a blanket ban, especially when taken out of context.
A blanket ban in courtrooms isn't unreasonable too - although they'd better have secure storage facilities, and be fully liable for all costs if something goes missing.
(Oh, and I guess I'm allowed to use my Nokia 5800 then, since it's not a Blackberry or Iphone.)
This law is idiotic, for the reason you've implied above: Images of cartoon characters are not images of real people (the allusion to such from your final statement) and as such nobody is harmed by their (cartoon images) creation.
Good, then we agree.
The difficulty is that there is a correlation between the evidence of both cases
A single case does not prove a correlation.
Both involve depictions of a sexual nature which have been deemed illegal by the AUS government. Right now, they did the right thing convicting him.
Yes, we know it's illegal - that's the point the OP was making, about double standard in laws.
To get back on topic - what if it turned out that one of the security employees working on these machines was later found to be guilty if possessing abusive images? Imagine the uproar then.
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting it should be illegal, the point is about the absurd double standard in the scaremongering that we get from the Government over both these two issues.
Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.
But why are all sorts of obviously unrealistic things being criminalised? How would drawings and cartoons have an effect?
As for your x-ray argument, don't people (or the parents) have to give consent?
Indeed, and before anyone points out they are different countries, the UK has recently explicitly brought in a new law that would cover drawings and cartoons (any image, realistic or unrealistic). So the UK Government does have a worrying double standard.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, you justify your viewpoint only on the grounds that it's not quite as bad as really bad things.
Nice one.
How do they differ from rude and hostile British people?
Try it sometime and then get back to me.
The British National Party is getting support now precisely because the common man in Britain can see what the elites can't: you can't have two nations living inside the same country, especially when one nation is composed of hostile immigrants who won't adapt.
Adapt to what? I'm British and lived here all my life, and I'm not going to "adapt" to be like a BNP supporter...
I strongly disagree that the Government should do what the BNP wants, just because the BNP might respond violently in future. How is that any different to giving into the religious terrorists?
The political correctness of the British government
What political correctness?
There are concerns about religious fundamentalism, sure. We still have Church leaders given seats in the House of Lords, and a Government that supports segregation via faith schools. But no, you were probably only talking about one particular religion?
Indeed. Although the IWF were stupid enough to think that they could get away with censoring Wikipedia pages (perhaps it was a test to see if they could get away with it?) The IWF backed down, but how many wrongly blocked pages on less popular sites go unnoticed? (The Wikipedia case was only noticed because their method of blocking caused problems for anyone in the UK accessing any Wikipedia page, and the admins noticed this problem.)
The Government have repeatedly told the ISPs that if they don't do it "voluntarily", they'll pass a law forcing them to do it. And from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7904607.stm , Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: "Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%."
Yes, they're so far "only" at 95%, but that just means they're not all the way there yet. It is Government mandated though.
It's the worst of both worlds. We're being forced into it by the Government, but because it's handled by a non-Government entity, there's no oversight or right of appeal, and the Government just say "Oh it's nothing to do with us, the ISPs 'chose' to do this".
Don't give them ideas! ;)
But yes - there's the Internet Watch Foundation (which also crowd sources its censorship - their website has a big red button for you to report stuff), which censors blocked webpages for about 95% of UK users (a few ISPs have yet to implement it, but the Government wants it to be mandatory for all). Allegedly it's only for "potential" child pr0n, but we know from the Wikipedia-censorship episode just how broadly they interpret that.
For anything else, it seems the Government is so far preferring to take down the source, and/or criminalise possession of the material.
Just to add some perspective on the US cost, note that the US contribution is about $500 million - also remember the LHC has been constructed over about a 15 year period I believe, so on average that's a yearly cost of $33 million. For comparison, the US yearly military budget is over half a trillion dollars.
Alternatively, based on estimates of the cost of the Iraq War, of $2-3 billion a week, the entire worldwide cost of the LHC over 15 years is about 3-4 weeks in Iraq...
You're right, although the article is then more vague on the matter:
Based on the new guidelines, it appears that the static parts of a Facebook page, like an employee's personal profile, fall under the FINRA rules that govern firms' marketing to the public, with the result that they need formal approval before being posted. The dynamic, conversational parts of a page--specifically, Facebook's wall, a blog's comments section, and other places where users interact with each other--could constitute a "public appearance" on behalf of the firm, which means posts don't have to be approved beforehand, but "firms must supervise these interactive electronic communications under NASD Rule 3010 in a manner reasonably designed to ensure that they do not violate the content requirements of FINRA's communications rules."
Does this just mean "posts that are giving advice", or any content?
Now, it only seems to refer to Facebook pages etc where the person identifies themselves as an employee of the firm (see the previous paragraph to the one I quoted), so it ought to be easily fixed by simply not doing that. But there are plenty of people on Facebook who do think nothing of listing who they work for in their profile (or doing it implicitly, such as "fanning" their company, or joining a network for their company), and may not realise that this means their Facebook page is now subject to these guidelines.
I don't see why multiple computers are annoying? The benefits outweight the disadvantages. Come on, this is Slashdot - doesn't everyone have at least three computers? ;)
I have a desktop and a laptop, and I may get a netbook for travel purposes, as they're so cheap. In fact the cost of my laptop and a netbook is less than the cheapest Mac laptop I could find.
You do realise that the Iphone is a niche phone too?</Nokia user>
And yes, Nokia and everyone else were doing those features long before Apple joined the party late.
It's pointless to watch a DVD on a portable media player too ... but that doesn't stop them selling millions.
But remember, netbooks are optimized for the net and only the net.
Completely false.
You seem to forget that computers get faster with time, exponentially. Today's netbooks are more powerful than laptops of a few years ago.
The same claims could be made of desktops - they're more powerful than laptops, at a cheaper price. But the fact remains is that laptops now outsell desktops, because today's laptops are more than enough for most people.
And how long do you think people are going to still be using DVDs for? You might as well sneer at laptops not including a floppy drive... Given the popularity of video mp3 players, it seems people are already preferring DVD-less solutions.
The extra cost is irrelevant - the amount of money used is the same, it's just a question of where it comes from. With my suggestion, it could ultimately come through taxes, but it would be spread across the entire population. With your system, most people don't pay, except the unfortunate ones who are stung with massive losses. Which is fairer? Which would give better peace of mind for people?
Employers are legally required to allow employees the opportunity to vote, even it means they cannot work while they do so. They are not required to pay hourly workers for time missed voting. Salaried workers still have to get their work done, even if they take time off to vote. My analogy is valid.
Bad analogy - voting is a choice. It also doesn't prevent your ability to work (anytime taken off would not be affecting someone's ability to eat or pay bills - hell, I manage to vote on my way to work, takes about 15 mins - can I do that with jury service?).
Preserving your income is irrelevant.
Yes, it's fine if people starve to death or lose their homes.
This is done to avoid bias because courts costs would skyrocket and professionals would almost never be chosen due to the cost.
We have lawyers being paid vast amounts, yet you whine about paying a basic amount to the most important people in the courtroom? There would be no choice, if it's random. And at the least, even if salaries aren't preserved, you can still pay people's living expenses.
As for bias, the current system biases against people who would lose out - they'll do their best to get out of it, leaving only the people who want to be on jury because they have an axe to grind.
Meanwhile, if you work on salary, you are obligated to get your job done.
Exactly my point. A full day on jury, then a full day on work - is having members of the jury who've had no sleep and are stressed and overworked a good thing? As well as worrying about whether they have enough money to pay the bills?
I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to my point. Voting has nothing to do with jury duty, nor should it.
People are talking about it, because of the endless hype, astroturfing and free advertising it's being given from all over the media.
And much of the talk is to say how useless it looks, or how disproportionate the hype is, in my experience.
The problem is that there are plenty of other titans in the mobile industry (most notably, Nokia), who are completely ignored. There are tablets and other portable devices around.
Actually I would say it's the opposite with Apple, they're more popular with geeks.
You have a lot of geeks using Macs, but they're a niche in the total market. Same with the Iphone - praised endlessly here on Slashdot, by people deluded enough to think it's the market leader, but in the real world over 95% of people are using non-Apple phones.
So why assume Data uses every single operation for a particular thought? The point is, we can't really compare vague things like operations per seconds.
Plus... electronics are faster.
Since we haven't yet made human level AI, even at a very slow speed, I'm not sure how we can compare?
Bad analogy - voting is a choice. It also doesn't prevent your ability to work.
Thankfully most employers will give people paid leave (without using up holiday) during jury service. But I have wondered how self-employed people are supposed to cope, or employees where they don't get paid - I mean, people still need to eat, and pay their bills. If "It is so that the normal expenses that you would not otherwise suffer (such as lunch and parking) become a net cost of 0." was really true, then preserving your income would be guaranteed, for all people.
Other issues are where employees are pressured to still do work (which ought to be outright illegal, but that doesn't stop it happening).
If more people who don't use the internet end up being jurors, I assume it will either have no effect or would improve the ability of jurors to listen to the facts of individual cases
That's speculation. But it also misses the point. The whole point for jury duty (and indeed, the argument for it being compulsory), is it's a random selection. As soon as you have a system biased towards certain people, then that is a bad thing - even if you try to speculate possible positive aspects of that bias.
Internet and mobile phone use is far more than what people use TV for. For many people, it forms their business, family and social communication; for dealing with companies (everything from paying bills, to ordering things); and for people's livelihoods (especially for self-employed people, since the state expects jurors to work for nothing; they still need to pay for food and rent/mortgage).
From TFA, I believe it's only talking about using these things to discuss or research the case ("The suggested instructions specifically inform jurors that they are prohibited from using these technologies in the courtroom, in deliberations, or outside the courthouse to communicate about or research cases on which they currently serve, the group stated."), and not a blanket ban (which would be absurd and draconian).
Although the article is rather badly worded - the paragraph "The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone ..." could imply a blanket ban, especially when taken out of context.
A blanket ban in courtrooms isn't unreasonable too - although they'd better have secure storage facilities, and be fully liable for all costs if something goes missing.
(Oh, and I guess I'm allowed to use my Nokia 5800 then, since it's not a Blackberry or Iphone.)
This law is idiotic, for the reason you've implied above: Images of cartoon characters are not images of real people (the allusion to such from your final statement) and as such nobody is harmed by their (cartoon images) creation.
Good, then we agree.
The difficulty is that there is a correlation between the evidence of both cases
A single case does not prove a correlation.
Both involve depictions of a sexual nature which have been deemed illegal by the AUS government. Right now, they did the right thing convicting him.
Yes, we know it's illegal - that's the point the OP was making, about double standard in laws.
To get back on topic - what if it turned out that one of the security employees working on these machines was later found to be guilty if possessing abusive images? Imagine the uproar then.
I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting it should be illegal, the point is about the absurd double standard in the scaremongering that we get from the Government over both these two issues.
Also, I doubt these scans have any erotic effect on even the most desperate pedophile except for those with some freaky scanner fetish.
But why are all sorts of obviously unrealistic things being criminalised? How would drawings and cartoons have an effect?
As for your x-ray argument, don't people (or the parents) have to give consent?
If you don't like scannerless airports, don't fly on holiday. It really is as simple as that.
(And because waiting in a crowded airport queuing with a terr0rist is much better?)
Indeed, and before anyone points out they are different countries, the UK has recently explicitly brought in a new law that would cover drawings and cartoons (any image, realistic or unrealistic). So the UK Government does have a worrying double standard.