What's a stop signal? A traffic light or a metal sign?
Either way, not as numerous as "stop signals" is not the same thing as rare. In a UK city there will be hundreds of roundabouts.
Hmmm
It depends on the size of the city, though it should be noted that we also have Roundabouts with Traffic Lights that control entry and exit from them...
You only have to pay money to the BBC for a TV licence, and no one's forcing you to do that.
You can't be fucking serious, as someone who owns a TV only for playing video-games I can tell you this isn't true. I think paying the bastards for something you technically don't use or being taken to court and fined a grand or more is a close to being forced as you can get short of them holding a loaded gun to your head. Especially when you can barley afford the license and you certainly can't afford the fucking fine.
Hmmm
That is incorrect, as long as you do not receive or record broadcast transmissions using that television (or any other device in that household) then you do not have to purchase a license for it. The bbc even has a form you can complete to inform them of that fact. I informed the bbc of the fact that I only have my tv hooked up to a games console years ago, every few years (3 I believe), they send me a new form....
The energy density of gasoline is about 37 kWh / US gallon. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. An acre is roughly 4000 m^2. A year contains roughly 8750 hours. 25000 barrels of oil per acre per year therefore means roughly 1100 W/m^2, averaged over the whole year - day and night.
Solar irradiation gives about 1400 W/m^2 of energy when it is straight overhead.
Who wants to guess whether they're going to achieve the 25000 barrels / acre / year?
Hmmm
800 barrels of Crude per acre, at least according to the summary. 25,000 gallons of ethanol...
According to recent reports the UK has the highest proportion of obese people in Europe, and the 5th highest in the world, so your statement is not accurate.
Yes I believe there are cost savings that could be made, however experience shows that is almost never managers that are removed. During the last conservative government (1979 - 1997) we had similar statements made by the tories on (in)efficiencies in the NHS, however during that period of time the amount of managers in the NHS increased faster than any other type of staff...
From the article : "Michael Williams admitted inciting sexual activity, grooming and distributing indecent images." "He groomed them, asked some to perform sex acts over a webcam and arranged to meet others before abusing them"
So it would appear that there was far more than just grooming that occurred.
It will also get you a longer sentence than abusing hundreds of children as in the following case
The above case seems to be remarkably lenient, given the sheer scale of the abuse I would have thought a life sentence would have been more appropriate.
I believe it is possible to be bound by US law, even though both the buyer and the seller are outside of the USA. The US maintains a list of countries that certain technology areas cannot be exported to. I believe the definition of exported is based on where the technology was first developed / patented.and not manufactured / assembled. Given the sheer amount of cross licensed technologies in the communications industry, it is entirely possible that the Nokia-Siemens monitoring equipment contains technology that was first developed / patented in the US and thus is subject to the US Governments export ban.
After reviewing the coverage of this and other similar stories, I am left believing that the media needs its own version of Newtons 3rd law of Motion. Something along the lines of : For every accusation there is an equal and opposite retraction.
Got any studies to show that roundabouts are better? Also, if roundabouts are so wonderful, why does the UK have so many traffic lights?
Hmmm
It is not practical to have a roundabout at every junction, therefore traffic lights are used.
The cynical side of me, believes that the sheer over-abundance of traffic lights (and the sequencing of them) is as much to do with increasing the Governments revenue from fuel duty as it is with road safety.
I live in the UK, we have lots of roundabouts, we have lots of traffic lights, we even have traffic lights on the busier roundabouts, but none of those stop people running red lights, or if on a roundabout without traffic lights, stop people from entering the roundabout when it is not safe for them to do so.
So, IMO, I don't believe that roundabouts alone would solve the problem.
It might be that way over where you are (though I am sceptical of the claim), alas it is not so here in the UK. In the UK courts the word of the Police Officers is considered to be proof enough.
Over here in the Uk a number of people have been arrested for taking pictures / recording the actions of police officers, even though it is not illegal to do so. They are later charged with other offences which conveniently occur after the camera has been confiscated...
That all sounds wonderful, except that you do not have to actually be resisting arrest for you to be charged and convicted with resisting arrest. You merely need the police to state that you were doing so...
Unless the event is recorded, or there are a substantial number of witnesses to the event willing to back your story, the word of the Police is almost always believed by the courts. One reason so many police officers want it to be illegal to record them, though obviously they claim it is for security or privacy concerns and never for accountability reasons...
Unless you were at the event, you are no in position to know if the journalist was being an asshole prior to the police stopping him and questioning about his actions.
After listening to the recording, I have to say that he was not being an asshole, he was merely trying to determine under what law(s) he was being prevented from taking photographs of the parade.
Informing the police they were wrong about the law is not being an asshole, nor is it an offence.
It is not conscious provocation, it is merely recording the events as and when they happen. I found it interesting that the spokesperson for the Met Police questioned why the journalist had recorded the incident.
The reason for recording said events is that without some form of recording, or without extensive independent witness corroboration, the courts almost always side with the police's version of what happened. regardless of how absurd the police version is.
In this instance we quite clearly hear the Police Officers inventing a series of criminal offences to justify their actions. Without the recording, it would be the police officers word against that of the journalist, he would have been arrested and no doubt charged and finally convicted for a public order offence, despite not actually committing any crime.
It seems there are way too many apologists for the police that are willing to excuse any and almost every action they do.
I wish it was the same over here in the UK, alas in reality, it tends to be that the police will arrest people for non arrestable offences (eg taking photos of uniformed police officers on duty) and then will make something up if they cannot find a legitimate reason to press charges, usually it involves "resisting arrest"...
Slashdot Mirror
What's a stop signal? A traffic light or a metal sign?
Either way, not as numerous as "stop signals" is not the same thing as rare. In a UK city there will be hundreds of roundabouts.
Hmmm
It depends on the size of the city, though it should be noted that we also have Roundabouts with Traffic Lights that control entry and exit from them...
Hmmm
Strangely enough, those people always manage to see the cops on their bikes...
You only have to pay money to the BBC for a TV licence, and no one's forcing you to do that.
You can't be fucking serious, as someone who owns a TV only for playing video-games I can tell you this isn't true. I think paying the bastards for something you technically don't use or being taken to court and fined a grand or more is a close to being forced as you can get short of them holding a loaded gun to your head. Especially when you can barley afford the license and you certainly can't afford the fucking fine.
Hmmm
That is incorrect, as long as you do not receive or record broadcast transmissions using that television (or any other device in that household) then you do not have to purchase a license for it. The bbc even has a form you can complete to inform them of that fact. I informed the bbc of the fact that I only have my tv hooked up to a games console years ago, every few years (3 I believe), they send me a new form....
The energy density of gasoline is about 37 kWh / US gallon.
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons.
An acre is roughly 4000 m^2.
A year contains roughly 8750 hours.
25000 barrels of oil per acre per year therefore means roughly 1100 W/m^2, averaged over the whole year - day and night.
Solar irradiation gives about 1400 W/m^2 of energy when it is straight overhead.
Who wants to guess whether they're going to achieve the 25000 barrels / acre / year?
Hmmm
800 barrels of Crude per acre, at least according to the summary. 25,000 gallons of ethanol...
Hmmm
You missed out "Arrest Assange for wasting police time by being arrested so often"
Hmmm
According to recent reports the UK has the highest proportion of obese people in Europe, and the 5th highest in the world, so your statement is not accurate.
Hmmm
Yes I believe there are cost savings that could be made, however experience shows that is almost never managers that are removed. During the last conservative government (1979 - 1997) we had similar statements made by the tories on (in)efficiencies in the NHS, however during that period of time the amount of managers in the NHS increased faster than any other type of staff...
That only happens when they discover oil...
Hmmm
From the article :
"Michael Williams admitted inciting sexual activity, grooming and distributing indecent images."
"He groomed them, asked some to perform sex acts over a webcam and arranged to meet others before abusing them"
So it would appear that there was far more than just grooming that occurred.
It will also get you a longer sentence than abusing hundreds of children as in the following case
The above case seems to be remarkably lenient, given the sheer scale of the abuse I would have thought a life sentence would have been more appropriate.
Hmmm
I believe it is possible to be bound by US law, even though both the buyer and the seller are outside of the USA. The US maintains a list of countries that certain technology areas cannot be exported to. I believe the definition of exported is based on where the technology was first developed / patented.and not manufactured / assembled. Given the sheer amount of cross licensed technologies in the communications industry, it is entirely possible that the Nokia-Siemens monitoring equipment contains technology that was first developed / patented in the US and thus is subject to the US Governments export ban.
After reviewing the coverage of this and other similar stories, I am left believing that the media needs its own version of Newtons 3rd law of Motion. Something along the lines of : For every accusation there is an equal and opposite retraction.
Ahh, I see. How about those studies?
Hmmm
You have replied to the wrong person, I believe it is Captain Splendid that you need to chase for them...
snip...
Got any studies to show that roundabouts are better? Also, if roundabouts are so wonderful, why does the UK have so many traffic lights?
Hmmm
It is not practical to have a roundabout at every junction, therefore traffic lights are used.
The cynical side of me, believes that the sheer over-abundance of traffic lights (and the sequencing of them) is as much to do with increasing the Governments revenue from fuel duty as it is with road safety.
Hmmm
It is not the roundabouts that are dangerous, it is the morons that are abusing them that are dangerous.
Hmmm
I live in the UK, we have lots of roundabouts, we have lots of traffic lights, we even have traffic lights on the busier roundabouts, but none of those stop people running red lights, or if on a roundabout without traffic lights, stop people from entering the roundabout when it is not safe for them to do so.
So, IMO, I don't believe that roundabouts alone would solve the problem.
Hmmm
It might be that way over where you are (though I am sceptical of the claim), alas it is not so here in the UK. In the UK courts the word of the Police Officers is considered to be proof enough.
Hmmm
Over here in the Uk a number of people have been arrested for taking pictures / recording the actions of police officers, even though it is not illegal to do so. They are later charged with other offences which conveniently occur after the camera has been confiscated...
Hmmm
That all sounds wonderful, except that you do not have to actually be resisting arrest for you to be charged and convicted with resisting arrest. You merely need the police to state that you were doing so...
Unless the event is recorded, or there are a substantial number of witnesses to the event willing to back your story, the word of the Police is almost always believed by the courts. One reason so many police officers want it to be illegal to record them, though obviously they claim it is for security or privacy concerns and never for accountability reasons...
Hmmm
Unless you were at the event, you are no in position to know if the journalist was being an asshole prior to the police stopping him and questioning about his actions.
After listening to the recording, I have to say that he was not being an asshole, he was merely trying to determine under what law(s) he was being prevented from taking photographs of the parade.
Informing the police they were wrong about the law is not being an asshole, nor is it an offence.
Hmmm
He did not refuse, if you listen to the recording you can quite clearly hear him asking several times for his id to be returned to him.
He did question why they wanted to take further details from him, and in particular what their reasoning for doing so was.
He did not provoke anything, he was entirely in the right.
Hmmm
It is not conscious provocation, it is merely recording the events as and when they happen. I found it interesting that the spokesperson for the Met Police questioned why the journalist had recorded the incident.
The reason for recording said events is that without some form of recording, or without extensive independent witness corroboration, the courts almost always side with the police's version of what happened. regardless of how absurd the police version is.
In this instance we quite clearly hear the Police Officers inventing a series of criminal offences to justify their actions. Without the recording, it would be the police officers word against that of the journalist, he would have been arrested and no doubt charged and finally convicted for a public order offence, despite not actually committing any crime.
It seems there are way too many apologists for the police that are willing to excuse any and almost every action they do.
Hmmm
I wish it was the same over here in the UK, alas in reality, it tends to be that the police will arrest people for non arrestable offences (eg taking photos of uniformed police officers on duty) and then will make something up if they cannot find a legitimate reason to press charges, usually it involves "resisting arrest"...
Hmmm
If memory serves me correctly, in the book it was 21.
Hmmm
An interesting idea, but far too limiting, surely what is really needed is an e-tattoo that can show all the corporates that have bought the judge...