I wonder how much people will be told about these machines though - or whether it will simply be "step through this scanner".
We won't see the resultant images (AFAIK), we won't see the people who are watching us, and sadly most people won't even realise that a strange man is looking at their children.
Re: (a) - as pointed out in TFA and TFA, this won't be the case. The Government won't be changing any of the stupid laws, it'll just be having its cake and eating it. One rule for them, another for the rest of us.
Indeed - it's interesting that the 2005 bombing didn't AFAICR get used as an excuse for more draconian laws. But a failed attempt in another country has resulted in the UK bringing new measures in.
Indeed - the irony is that if anyone did walk through naked in the airport, they'd get arrested.
And we may joke, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years' time, people are required to changed into mandatory uniform jumpsuits. We've already had the rules about not being allowed to leave your seats without permission...
I'd have far more respect for their argument if supporters of this law were to post images of themselves under this machine, for random strangers to see. Even there, it's a tenuous argument (just because some people don't mind, doesn't mean no one will), but the fact that they don't even do this suggests that they aren't even being honest about how much they value their personal privacy.
If a person wants to see a random person without clothes, can he do so? No, and he'd probably be arrested for even asking. Can we even see the people who will be watching us (with clothes or not)? Apparently not.
Some of us live here, and have to put up with this nonsense...
Sarah Bennett says "The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people."
Brilliant. Is she willing to put pictures of herself under this machine available somewhere so they can be viewed by random members of the public - not so we can store them and we can't recognise her in the image? Or is she a hypocrite who demands one rule for us, and another for herself?
A rule which meant under 18s were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government.
Then the operators should be arrested for making child pr0n. Of course, I think it would be absurd to do so, but it's the Government that wrote that law too.
I'd say Nintendo DS has the casual gamer wrapped up - at 125 million sales, the Iphone doesn't even come anywhere near close. And that's before we consider that most people are probably buying the Iphone for reasons other than gaming.
So in other words, it doesn't. Might as well claim that phones out there can run Windows 7, because Windows Mobile is a "scaled down version optimised for a handheld device".
Got multitasking working yet? I'm not sure it's a particularly good claim to say that IphoneOS is OS X, unless you want to make OS X look bad... It was the original MacOS that couldn't ever multitask!
Ah yes - the car fallacy, as often seen in Apple debates: "Porsches are expensive, but better than everything else. Therefore, Apple products which are expensive must be better too".
But let me tell you, it's no myth: usually Apple gets interfaces near perfect. No one beats them in that aspect.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.
"Mac sucks! Windows rules!"
"No, Windows sucks! Mac rules!"
That's the level of debate witnessed here. Can you back up your claim that Apple interfaces (which lack basic UI functionality like copy/paste, for example) are "near perfect", and that no one else beats them?
But if people are setting up a website to return a mobile version for mobile browsers, surely they could do the same for the N900? How would you avoid them doing that?
You're right about Symbian, but the Iphone's market share is way behind. I have no idea how it compares to Maemo (do you have a source?), but there are plenty of other platforms they ought to support before the Iphone, if market share was their concern.
"We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform." - so they're ignoring the most used phone OS.
Opera Mobile supports Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android and BREW. On the other hand, I'm not sure it supports Maemo, so to be fair Firefox is there for that platform.
They have no plans for Java, so Opera Mini will still be the preference for the 2 billion or so Java smartphones out there.
Why would you want to? Even far cheaper netbooks have the power to run full blown browsers like the normal Firefox. If the Ipad can't do that, more fool anyone who buys it.
Can you show me which scientific theory claimed that flight wasn't possible?
Given that birds fly, even in ancient times it ought to be trivial to disprove any claim that heavier than air flight was impossible (whether or not humans might work out how to do it).
You know, that's an excellent point. Remember all the uproar, including from Apple fans, when Windows proposed its three app limit?
Yet when it's Apple, "multitasking" is simply something that isn't needed, or even, that it's better to only run one app at once, because that will apparently make it easier which is apparently what people want.
Microsoft should release a special "Apple user" edition with a one app limit (as well as lots of other features removed, and of course you can only run an app with Microsoft's permission), let's see how well that sells.
Slashdot Mirror
Had the man not been convicted before of a similar offence, I'm fairly certain the outcome (and press coverage) would be considerably different.
Oh, you think? Are you willing to step forward and be a test case then, if you're so sure?
(And "similar" offence? Abusive images are in no way similar.)
I wonder how much people will be told about these machines though - or whether it will simply be "step through this scanner".
We won't see the resultant images (AFAIK), we won't see the people who are watching us, and sadly most people won't even realise that a strange man is looking at their children.
Big ship hits an iceberg? It sinks.
Re: (a) - as pointed out in TFA and TFA, this won't be the case. The Government won't be changing any of the stupid laws, it'll just be having its cake and eating it. One rule for them, another for the rest of us.
I've flown Stansted to Alternberg.
Indeed - it's interesting that the 2005 bombing didn't AFAICR get used as an excuse for more draconian laws. But a failed attempt in another country has resulted in the UK bringing new measures in.
Indeed - the irony is that if anyone did walk through naked in the airport, they'd get arrested.
And we may joke, but it wouldn't surprise me if in 10 years' time, people are required to changed into mandatory uniform jumpsuits. We've already had the rules about not being allowed to leave your seats without permission...
I entirely agree.
I'd have far more respect for their argument if supporters of this law were to post images of themselves under this machine, for random strangers to see. Even there, it's a tenuous argument (just because some people don't mind, doesn't mean no one will), but the fact that they don't even do this suggests that they aren't even being honest about how much they value their personal privacy.
If a person wants to see a random person without clothes, can he do so? No, and he'd probably be arrested for even asking. Can we even see the people who will be watching us (with clothes or not)? Apparently not.
Some of us live here, and have to put up with this nonsense...
Sarah Bennett says "The image generated by the body scanner cannot be stored or captured nor can security officers viewing the images recognise people."
Brilliant. Is she willing to put pictures of herself under this machine available somewhere so they can be viewed by random members of the public - not so we can store them and we can't recognise her in the image? Or is she a hypocrite who demands one rule for us, and another for herself?
A rule which meant under 18s were not allowed to participate in the body scanner trial has been overturned by the government.
Then the operators should be arrested for making child pr0n. Of course, I think it would be absurd to do so, but it's the Government that wrote that law too.
The iphone has the casual gamer wrapped up.
I'd say Nintendo DS has the casual gamer wrapped up - at 125 million sales, the Iphone doesn't even come anywhere near close. And that's before we consider that most people are probably buying the Iphone for reasons other than gaming.
Yes, we know it's also based on Darwin. That doesn't make it the same as OS X.
So in other words, it doesn't. Might as well claim that phones out there can run Windows 7, because Windows Mobile is a "scaled down version optimised for a handheld device".
Got multitasking working yet? I'm not sure it's a particularly good claim to say that IphoneOS is OS X, unless you want to make OS X look bad... It was the original MacOS that couldn't ever multitask!
Ah yes - the car fallacy, as often seen in Apple debates: "Porsches are expensive, but better than everything else. Therefore, Apple products which are expensive must be better too".
It ought not to be too hard to see the fallacy.
But let me tell you, it's no myth: usually Apple gets interfaces near perfect. No one beats them in that aspect.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.
"Mac sucks! Windows rules!"
"No, Windows sucks! Mac rules!"
That's the level of debate witnessed here. Can you back up your claim that Apple interfaces (which lack basic UI functionality like copy/paste, for example) are "near perfect", and that no one else beats them?
Symbian's built in browser supports Flash fine.
Why is a redisplay app bad if it gets the job done?
Or I could just install Windows on a non-Apple PC, and save the $29. Just because I spent $100, doesn't mean I feel like throwing an extra $29 away.
The packaging of the components is what makes it cost more, and the price is at a point the market will bear.
What does packaging mean? And you could say that about any expensive product - "the price is at a point the market will bear".
I know I couldn't find anything in the PC world that matched the features of my iMac - ... the ability to run OS X without making a hackintosh.
Macs are PCs. And one could say there's nothing in the non-Amiga world that matches the features of an Amiga, because they can't run AmigaOS.
98 good, WinME suck, XP SP2/3 good, Vista royal suck, Windows 7 good, so Windows 8 will be a hoover vac o' suck.
It's just like Star Trek movies!
But if people are setting up a website to return a mobile version for mobile browsers, surely they could do the same for the N900? How would you avoid them doing that?
You're right about Symbian, but the Iphone's market share is way behind. I have no idea how it compares to Maemo (do you have a source?), but there are plenty of other platforms they ought to support before the Iphone, if market share was their concern.
Note that Nokia's other phones, running Symbian, do support Flash with their native browsers.
"We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform." - so they're ignoring the most used phone OS.
Opera Mobile supports Symbian, Windows Mobile, Android and BREW. On the other hand, I'm not sure it supports Maemo, so to be fair Firefox is there for that platform.
They have no plans for Java, so Opera Mini will still be the preference for the 2 billion or so Java smartphones out there.
Why would you want to? Even far cheaper netbooks have the power to run full blown browsers like the normal Firefox. If the Ipad can't do that, more fool anyone who buys it.
Can you show me which scientific theory claimed that flight wasn't possible?
Given that birds fly, even in ancient times it ought to be trivial to disprove any claim that heavier than air flight was impossible (whether or not humans might work out how to do it).
You know, that's an excellent point. Remember all the uproar, including from Apple fans, when Windows proposed its three app limit?
Yet when it's Apple, "multitasking" is simply something that isn't needed, or even, that it's better to only run one app at once, because that will apparently make it easier which is apparently what people want.
Microsoft should release a special "Apple user" edition with a one app limit (as well as lots of other features removed, and of course you can only run an app with Microsoft's permission), let's see how well that sells.