What part of a court ordered "Not My Problem" does the AU politicians not understand about policing illegal downloads?
I dunno, I think the ISPs could use this as leverage against the studios to really pay up. Almost to extortion, but legal.
Want us to police your content, we dont, but if you offer good enough incentive, we might make an effort to work with you, but we dont really have to.
There are a number of laws that make doing dodgy stuff using snail mail illegal, but they don't force the Post Office to open all the mail and check for illegal content?
that the Australian Government and all the potential murderers and all the potential murder victims sit down and work out a solution to stop murder from ever taking place in Australia.
Hmmm. Wouldn't that be the Aus Gov and the owners of establishments where murders are most likely to take place to sit down and work out a solution...
... It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people....
Oh come on! Being naked isn't rude! [shakes head]
You may not like the idea of such a body scanner, and I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't object because some joker gets to see my cock and balls, I object because it will cost a bundle, take yet more time, and have little or no effect in actually stopping terrorism!
Hence the phrase Security Theatre.
It's trying to reassure the public that everything that can be done is being done when the media are pretty much trying to convince us all that WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
An alternative might be to stop the media from being a bunch of fear-mongers instead!
... photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.
Sheeez! I take every opportunity to poke fun at the Security Theatre, like the next guy, but really, throw in some bs about asylum seekers and that could be a generic Daily Mail headline!
The people aren't naked, regardless of whether they are considered children or not
There is (apparently) no photograph as such, the image appears on a screen and those images are not (AFAIK) stored. At all.
Children have historically been photographed naked since cameras were first invented (baby on a rug!), and similar pictures painted from well before then.
The knee-jerk reaction to the over-hyped paedophile threat has done more damage to children and childhood than the paedophiles ever could, and it would seem the over-hyped terrorist threat is just trying to catch up!
The media's tendency to over-play the risks, for both terrorism and paedophiles, would be funny if it wasn't screwing with the world. The only hope is that now they seem to be running headlong at each other that they may cancel each other out and we can return to a more normal world!
The funny thing is that in both cases it would seem that otherwise rational people seem unable or unwilling to stand up and be counted and say "NO", but if the law has "children" or "terrorism" in it politicians simply can't vote against it!
... There's only a limited direct service, and into Stansted was the best return option on a Sunday evening. However, the flight would arrive at 11pm. The last train to London departs at midnight. Any delay whatsoever, and I would estimate at least 50% of the time there was, one would miss that final train. Only other option is a bus. Even if you did catch the train to Liverpool Street, by the time you arrived, the Underground service was finished and a night bus was the only option (or a taxi of course, but that's pretty expensive)....
When I first got the Crossrail info I was astounded that they didn't even consider running a service up to Stansted from the Liverpool St end! There's a spur down to LHR from the Paddington end (hurrah!) and an option to get to Stansted at the other end would seem such a grand idea as to be a no-brainer! At least a no-brainer to consider it, but apparently not. Wasn't even a glimmer of a suggestion.
Makes you wonder what sort of numbnuts they get to look into these sorts of things!
Us Brits were pretty used to the security in place due to the IRA bombings and whilst the blowing up of car bombs and pubs and whatnot was reported it was never really dwelled upon too much. Sure it was bad. People died, people were maimed. Mostly people refused to be scared (or at least refused to show they were scared!). Life continued and other than the missing bins and religious adherence to the "keep your baggage with you" idea life went on...
Quite why we're over reacting so much now I don't know... Is it because when we fly we are, in general, flying somewhere else and the destination country doesn't grasp that overly enthusiastic security theatre just becomes part of the problem (spreading the fear) rather than anything even vaguely resembling a solution (because they will find new ways to spread fear)!
... are generally shocked by the fact that Australians and Americans shower together...
Is this always the case? I guess it's pretty lucky for the Yanks that Aussies are so ubiquitous but what if yer an Aussie and there are no Yanks about? Do you have to use the bath?
Yep, they try to spread terror through random(ish) acts of violence that sometimes result in deaths. They are not simply trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their particular brand of imaginary friend. Well, not yet anyway!
The best way to fight it is to not be afraid. Sure there are risks involved in flying (and anything else they target), but the extra risk directly attributable to the erstwhile terrorists is actually pretty small. The problem is that the media (TV and paper news) seems to be on their side and loves nothing more than going into Headless Chicken Mode, running around screaming "Something Must Be Done" and "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children" which amplifies and spreads the fear, and of course sells!
How about a world-wide go-slow on terrorist event coverage?
Sure, let us know when shit happens but for the love of everyone's gods, cut the crap "How does it feel" style reporting! We all know it's gotta blow goats to be blown up, lose loved ones, etc, and it really doesn't do anything useful in reporting events, it just spreads fear!
... If the kid was just tinkering and liked electronics, he probably would have loved to explain it.
This is a bit disingenuous because if the device was a bomb (and remember that the Principle had absolutely no idea whether it was or not) the kid might have shown how it worked rather then just explained it! KAPOW!!
... and people suggesting suing the school for the cost of the false alarm aren't thinking it through either - like the fire brigade, ambulance, coast guard, etc, you WANT people to call in immediately if they see something amiss. I've certainly heard from fire officers that they'd rather have a (obviously non-malicious!) false call than not get called for a real fire, indeed some of my nephews thought there was a fire and called them. They arrive and it wasn't a fire but they made a point of saying just that to the boys - it was good to call us because you thought there was a fire!
Of course perhaps the Principle could have talked to some of the Chemistry teachers, etc, (basically, anyone who has a clue!) to find out how likely it was to be a bomb first...
Well, there is a potential fly in the ointment because the people pitching Galileo are hunting around for any applications that they can make money on and have been bombarding the EU Governments with 'vehicle tracking' style system which would be great as part of a general 'road pricing' system, not to mention the ultimate way to track everyone's movements!
Unfortunately we seem to have to be ever vigilant to stop our governments from trying to sell us down the river into some Orwellian nightmare... and don't think they don't want to either. They've had multiple attempts at pushing this sort of tech on us over the last 10 years and so far they've been stopped, but much like Ireland's voting on the Lisbon Treaty, they'll keep pushing until they succeed and it's going to be VERY difficult to reverse it once it's done - notice Ireland voted NO the first time and YES second(last) time. Hands up all those who think there's going to be a "Best of Three" referendum about it next year!
Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn.
I'd offer up a counter-argument here and suggest that, like Art, Porn is in the eye of the beholder (should that be "hold of the beholder"?).
Sure, there's a variety of legal definitions, but they are, to all intents and purposes, to be used as yardsticks - indeed the (legal) definition of Porn is different in different countries (hell, probably different in different states in the US!) and has (and I'm sure will) change over time within a country.
Remember that Legal Definitions aren't Fact. You only have to look into the mirky world of fetish to see that Porn means different things to different people - Actually "Porn" probably means the same thing ("Things to get off on") but you get my drift. Consider the foot-fetish folks. People who like to see images of people smoking! Tub- and those 2:1 cup- ladies.
Now normally we're happy to let people float their boat in whatever way they like (as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses) but Society has decreed that some practises are verboten and try to make such materials as would arouse those folk verboten too. They've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand (this horny and no hornier) which has no real effect on those who crave the material but just follows the common Political adage that "Something Must Be Done: And this is Something".
It's generally pointless. If you present a loophole people who want to do something illegal will use it. If you do not scan a specific group of people and this is known, you needn't scan anyone. Because all materials you are looking for will be carried by a member of that group of people, if necessary one such person will be taken along for that single purpose alone.
Two things. I shall call them Thing 1 and Thing 2: Thing 1: The first religious nutjobs to try the explosives in a bottle malarky (and hence why we can no longer carry any liquids in bottles larger than 100 ml) took along their infant as cover for the milk in the bottle. They really don't mind sacrificing their children - hey, where do you think all those virgins come from in the first place! Thing 2: The scanners aren't going to be just before you board your 'plane, so kids could carry through the explosives to air side and pass them to someone on a different flight - just in case some of the religious nutjobs don't want to incinerate their offspring!
Now whilst I'm here... anyone else see the flaw in the Less Than 100 ml bottle security theatre fiasco?
How about a bunch of people carry through their small bag of 100 ml bottles and then buy a suitable water bottle air-side and decant them all into one bottle? Or all carry them on board and mix 'em there even? It's just so bloody stupid!
I do understand the concept of making it as difficult as possible but it's like protecting your house from burglary: You only need to make your house appear to be sufficiently more protected than your neighbour's for the burglars to target them instead, but if there's something they really want in your house you simply won't be able to stop them getting it if they are sufficiently motivated!
And of course those privacy invasions only get worse, never better. No politician dares to remove those "security" cameras and other "security" measures.
Well, I guess it's more perceived safety than security, but one of our local councils has removed a bunch of speed cameras : Council ends speed camera funding.
So it can happen, but it's almost impossible for an MP, Councillor, or other elected representative to have the backbone to stand up against any sort of "Think Of The Children" (TotC) style legislation because it may well curtail their tenure at the next election!
... When I get into "the zone" I can go for several hours at a time without really even looking up. I just don't do it every day
Yep... Me too. But on the other side of the coin I sometimes pop off to the gym for a couple-o-hours and whilst I'm on the cross trainer, or weights, or swimming, I can often be rolling a problem around in my head too. Of course, I don't charge for Gym-time, but it's a two-way street! Unfortunately the whole concept of "a bit of give and take" gets shafted when there are those who take the piss! Sadly, Management are often also woefully lacking and tend to clamp down on everyone rather than just take the miscreants aside for a quiet word, so everyone suffers! Hey Ho!
A couple/few big revolving doors for those who have to travel with so much luggage and maybe some express turnstiles either side for those who travel light.
Nice one... and the added benefit of actually speeding up all the slowcoach muppets as they leave the airport through what is almost always a choke point!
Nothing to be carried as hand luggage unless there's a medical need for it! There's an end to a HUGE amount of carry-on luggage screening right there! The time saved can be used to more thoroughly check the people and their exploding shoes and undercrackers.
Some of the cheaper airlines might not be happy as it's gonna slow down their turnaround, but maybe the airports can just get better at getting luggage in and out of the hold!
Ya know the day we don't change our security laws when a plane is unsuccessfully (or even successfully) bombed, and don't freak out and read about it in the media for 2-3 months... I believe that is the day the terrorists would lose.
I'd have to agree, though that might not stop them trying, unfortunately! The IRA bombing campaign(s) in London where they bombed pubs, etc, and were the cause of there not being any waste bins (trash cans) anywhere 'cos they'd leave bombs in them too. London continued to run, though we did have the "Ring of Steel" around the city for a while, and it mutated into defending against the Nu-Terrorist threat of course. We ignored the bombs as best we could (some of my drinking places were bombed and it did give you a frisson of excitement when you went back to the newly refurbished pub!) but they still kept doing it.
So, what stopped it? Bliar will tell you it was his talking to them that ended it all, but in truth it was more likely to be down to the Twin Towers attack that brought home to those funding the IRA from the US what it was they were actually funding! The IRA's political wing, Sinn Féin, must have realised that the funding would dry up and if they want (to keep!) power they'd have to talk, and now, thank god, it's mostly over (what remains is more akin to the Mafia than freedom fighters!) and boy is that ever a good feeling! There are kids growing up in Ireland and Britain who don't remember anything of the IRA troubles now! It's likely more death and destruction has been stopped because of the IRA cease-fire than has been caused by Al-Qaeda since!
The point? I don't think it is realistically possible to stop terrorism by brute force, which is unfortunately usually the weapon of choice for the US (if all you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail!). The airport Security Theatre isn't solving the problem, it's a band-aid at best. However much I find the idea distasteful I think we have to talk to them about their grievances, but if we can do non-aggressive things like cut their funding then all the better - if nothing else it will encourage them to come and talk about it!
This all reminds me of a silly story:
A bloke pops into a cafe for lunch and orders an omelette and salad, but asks them to not give him any spring onions as he doesn't like them.
Sorry, says the cafe geezer, we're fresh out of spring onions, you'll have to have it without something else instead!
From their point of view, you are denying them their beliefs. They believe that drinking beer on a Sunday is a sin. They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday....
OK, so assuming that is true, and the new law makes it illegal to do anything blasphemous to any religion, that also rules out driving or turning on lights, lifting things (such as beer from bar to mouth) on Saturdays because that's the Jewish holy day...
That's gonna make a Weekend break in Ireland a pretty quiet time eh!
Surely all the religions are going to be suing each other for all these "Spot The Difference" infractions and the only people who are going to win will be the lawyers... God bless 'em!
Someone needs to enlighten the companies who make this software. I think that I should pay for everything I own but I also don't think I should pay for 5 copies because I have 5 computers. Anti-virus folks are getting on the right train with this. Pay a little bit more and get 3, or even 5, license's for a product and use it that many times.
I've got a Ford Focus, but I need another one, so presumably I can just pop into the nearest Ford dealer and pick one up - hey I already bought the first one? OK, perhaps not a valid analogy, but the only reason you think it's OK to buy one and copy it four times is because it is easy to copy it! If software wasn't easily copyable you wouldn't think it odd to have to buy all the copies you need.
Where I'm going with this is the terms and conditions are (and should be) set by the seller. If some software vendor says you have to buy every copy you use and you don't like it buy an alternative, do without the extra copies, or stump up the wedge!
Complete repeal of all copyright
OK, so how does the creator of the content make a living from it if it is otherwise freely available on the internet? I guess the first few copies will likely be sold as the creator will be the only person who has them, but at some point some like minded light fingered sole puts a copy up on Copyright.Infringement.Bay and that's all she wrote for the creator, possibly in both senses of the phrase!
State support of the content industries? Why not state support of the car industry - you wanna car, wander over to yer nearest dealer and drive away in one and don't you worry about paying for it 'cos the Gov. will pick up the tab - free fuel/servicing/insurance too I guess? Why is that different (I assume you just spat yer coffee out in rage at such a stupid idea - well, welcome to my world!). Car designers, et al, are perhaps more worthy than content providers? Or is it just that you can't easily (AKA cheaply) copy a car?
OK, so maybe you just think you don't have to pay for something if stealing it (or a copy of it!) is easy? (see also not easily traceable) The problem here is twofold, as I see it.
The first fold is most definately the media moguls and their pet politicians who feel that just because they had a ticket on the gravy train that train should never stop. Well to them I say: wake up buddy, 'cos yer train's pulling into the station and it's the last stop!
The second fold is that people who illegally download content are stealing and any right minded person can see it IS theft. Because it is so obviously theft it gives power to the media moguls when they complain about it - 'cos they're right! You shouldn't be stealing content, and don't give me all that guff about copying isn't stealing either, 'cos I'm not buying it and you shouldn't be selling it! If it was some song/film/game/widget you wrote (and you wanted some money for it) it'd be a different matter and you know it!
The Pirate Bay
LOL - peg legs, pieces of eight. Nice one. Of course no one ever refers to "Pirate(d) Software", etc, do they. Nice try though - HaHaarrrrrrrr!
You don't give up ethics just because the bully's whine more
Just because the whine is coming from a bully doesn't mean people aren't stealing from them either! You make it sound like it's OK to steal from a bully? Hey bud... that's still stealing - lol - I guess you don't give up your ethics if you didn't have any to start with!
Is it goverment allowing themseles to be maneuvred or media moguls being played to be white horses?
---
So you end up with censorship infrastructure for your use and with someone else taking blame for all of it happening. Its quite a victory!
True, never attribute to incompetence that which could be malice!
Governments trying to grab more power!? The Hell You Say! Oh... yes... OK... yer, that might be happening too. Certainly having an infrastructure that gives power to the Gov isn't going to be something they fight against too hard - Lord Voldeson-er-Mandlemort's new digital bill amendment for example, that allows new powers to be drawn up without recourse to any discussions or voting on the matter in Parliament!
See also all this climate change shenanigans: That's going to give Governments even more power (and I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, or, indeed, that it might be us at least partially responsible!).
But if you go that way then they should also block search engines as they after all facilitate the search for illegal material....
.. and so, reductio ad absurdum, we end up banning the internet (which, as we all know, is a series of tubes) because it too facilitates crime.
OK, let's take a few steps back from the precipice and discuss where we actually want to draw the line, indeed, where is it sensible to draw the line. Yahoo? Google? Well, obviously not, we're still firmly on terra-absurdum there. But The Pirate Bay? Come on... it even has "Pirate" in the damn name! That's like a shop called "Burglars-R-Us" selling lock-picks, crowbars and bricks in velvet bags - buy two items get a personally engraved cosh free! That is going to attract unwanted attention from the powers that be and it deserves to!
Assuming most of us are in the IT business we have to stop looking at illegal copying as some sort of freedom fight or otherwise worthy cause. I agree whole heartedly that the media barons are just trying to protect their outdated business model, but having people advocate, or otherwise support, the cause of software and/or content theft (ie taking without paying when payment is requested) is foolish as it all adds fervour to the content companies cries and it would appear that no government can resist the tears of a media mogul weeping into their bolly as they moan about all their lost sales, darlings!
Slashdot Mirror
What part of a court ordered "Not My Problem" does the AU politicians not understand about policing illegal downloads?
I dunno, I think the ISPs could use this as leverage against the studios to really pay up. Almost to extortion, but legal.
Want us to police your content, we dont, but if you offer good enough incentive, we might make an effort to work with you, but we dont really have to.
There are a number of laws that make doing dodgy stuff using snail mail illegal, but they don't force the Post Office to open all the mail and check for illegal content?
that the Australian Government and all the potential murderers and all the potential murder victims sit down and work out a solution to stop murder from ever taking place in Australia.
Hmmm. Wouldn't that be the Aus Gov and the owners of establishments where murders are most likely to take place to sit down and work out a solution ...
... It's not that hard to secure a plane without basically taking nude pictures of people. ...
Oh come on! Being naked isn't rude! [shakes head]
You may not like the idea of such a body scanner, and I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't object because some joker gets to see my cock and balls, I object because it will cost a bundle, take yet more time, and have little or no effect in actually stopping terrorism!
Hence the phrase Security Theatre.
It's trying to reassure the public that everything that can be done is being done when the media are pretty much trying to convince us all that WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
An alternative might be to stop the media from being a bunch of fear-mongers instead!
... photographing naked children is some next level shit to put it bluntly.
Sheeez! I take every opportunity to poke fun at the Security Theatre, like the next guy, but really, throw in some bs about asylum seekers and that could be a generic Daily Mail headline!
The people aren't naked, regardless of whether they are considered children or not
There is (apparently) no photograph as such, the image appears on a screen and those images are not (AFAIK) stored. At all.
Children have historically been photographed naked since cameras were first invented (baby on a rug!), and similar pictures painted from well before then.
The knee-jerk reaction to the over-hyped paedophile threat has done more damage to children and childhood than the paedophiles ever could, and it would seem the over-hyped terrorist threat is just trying to catch up!
The media's tendency to over-play the risks, for both terrorism and paedophiles, would be funny if it wasn't screwing with the world. The only hope is that now they seem to be running headlong at each other that they may cancel each other out and we can return to a more normal world!
The funny thing is that in both cases it would seem that otherwise rational people seem unable or unwilling to stand up and be counted and say "NO", but if the law has "children" or "terrorism" in it politicians simply can't vote against it!
... There's only a limited direct service, and into Stansted was the best return option on a Sunday evening. However, the flight would arrive at 11pm. The last train to London departs at midnight. Any delay whatsoever, and I would estimate at least 50% of the time there was, one would miss that final train. Only other option is a bus. Even if you did catch the train to Liverpool Street, by the time you arrived, the Underground service was finished and a night bus was the only option (or a taxi of course, but that's pretty expensive). ...
When I first got the Crossrail info I was astounded that they didn't even consider running a service up to Stansted from the Liverpool St end! There's a spur down to LHR from the Paddington end (hurrah!) and an option to get to Stansted at the other end would seem such a grand idea as to be a no-brainer! At least a no-brainer to consider it, but apparently not. Wasn't even a glimmer of a suggestion.
Makes you wonder what sort of numbnuts they get to look into these sorts of things!
Quite why we're over reacting so much now I don't know ... Is it because when we fly we are, in general, flying somewhere else and the destination country doesn't grasp that overly enthusiastic security theatre just becomes part of the problem (spreading the fear) rather than anything even vaguely resembling a solution (because they will find new ways to spread fear)!
... are generally shocked by the fact that Australians and Americans shower together ...
Is this always the case? I guess it's pretty lucky for the Yanks that Aussies are so ubiquitous but what if yer an Aussie and there are no Yanks about? Do you have to use the bath?
Peoples fear is scarier than terrorism.
Yep, they try to spread terror through random(ish) acts of violence that sometimes result in deaths. They are not simply trying to kill everyone who doesn't follow their particular brand of imaginary friend. Well, not yet anyway!
The best way to fight it is to not be afraid. Sure there are risks involved in flying (and anything else they target), but the extra risk directly attributable to the erstwhile terrorists is actually pretty small. The problem is that the media (TV and paper news) seems to be on their side and loves nothing more than going into Headless Chicken Mode, running around screaming "Something Must Be Done" and "Won't Somebody Think Of The Children" which amplifies and spreads the fear, and of course sells!
How about a world-wide go-slow on terrorist event coverage?
Sure, let us know when shit happens but for the love of everyone's gods, cut the crap "How does it feel" style reporting! We all know it's gotta blow goats to be blown up, lose loved ones, etc, and it really doesn't do anything useful in reporting events, it just spreads fear!
... If the kid was just tinkering and liked electronics, he probably would have loved to explain it.
This is a bit disingenuous because if the device was a bomb (and remember that the Principle had absolutely no idea whether it was or not) the kid might have shown how it worked rather then just explained it! KAPOW!!
Of course perhaps the Principle could have talked to some of the Chemistry teachers, etc, (basically, anyone who has a clue!) to find out how likely it was to be a bomb first ...
... Would be great for everyone ...
Well, there is a potential fly in the ointment because the people pitching Galileo are hunting around for any applications that they can make money on and have been bombarding the EU Governments with 'vehicle tracking' style system which would be great as part of a general 'road pricing' system, not to mention the ultimate way to track everyone's movements!
Unfortunately we seem to have to be ever vigilant to stop our governments from trying to sell us down the river into some Orwellian nightmare ... and don't think they don't want to either. They've had multiple attempts at pushing this sort of tech on us over the last 10 years and so far they've been stopped, but much like Ireland's voting on the Lisbon Treaty, they'll keep pushing until they succeed and it's going to be VERY difficult to reverse it once it's done - notice Ireland voted NO the first time and YES second(last) time. Hands up all those who think there's going to be a "Best of Three" referendum about it next year!
... then they obviously have a way to jam Galileo if they deem it "necessary".
I sure hope us Europeeeens have a similar ability to jam GPS, and the stones to use it, if the US _ever_ jams Galileo!
It'd be better if the US could use it's obvious might more like a big brother and less like a school bully!
Just because someone finds it arousing doesn't make it porn.
I'd offer up a counter-argument here and suggest that, like Art, Porn is in the eye of the beholder (should that be "hold of the beholder"?).
Sure, there's a variety of legal definitions, but they are, to all intents and purposes, to be used as yardsticks - indeed the (legal) definition of Porn is different in different countries (hell, probably different in different states in the US!) and has (and I'm sure will) change over time within a country.
Remember that Legal Definitions aren't Fact. You only have to look into the mirky world of fetish to see that Porn means different things to different people - Actually "Porn" probably means the same thing ("Things to get off on") but you get my drift. Consider the foot-fetish folks. People who like to see images of people smoking! Tub- and those 2:1 cup- ladies.
Now normally we're happy to let people float their boat in whatever way they like (as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses) but Society has decreed that some practises are verboten and try to make such materials as would arouse those folk verboten too. They've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand (this horny and no hornier) which has no real effect on those who crave the material but just follows the common Political adage that "Something Must Be Done: And this is Something".
It's generally pointless. If you present a loophole people who want to do something illegal will use it. If you do not scan a specific group of people and this is known, you needn't scan anyone. Because all materials you are looking for will be carried by a member of that group of people, if necessary one such person will be taken along for that single purpose alone.
Two things. I shall call them Thing 1 and Thing 2:
Thing 1: The first religious nutjobs to try the explosives in a bottle malarky (and hence why we can no longer carry any liquids in bottles larger than 100 ml) took along their infant as cover for the milk in the bottle. They really don't mind sacrificing their children - hey, where do you think all those virgins come from in the first place!
Thing 2: The scanners aren't going to be just before you board your 'plane, so kids could carry through the explosives to air side and pass them to someone on a different flight - just in case some of the religious nutjobs don't want to incinerate their offspring!
Now whilst I'm here ... anyone else see the flaw in the Less Than 100 ml bottle security theatre fiasco?
How about a bunch of people carry through their small bag of 100 ml bottles and then buy a suitable water bottle air-side and decant them all into one bottle? Or all carry them on board and mix 'em there even? It's just so bloody stupid!
I do understand the concept of making it as difficult as possible but it's like protecting your house from burglary: You only need to make your house appear to be sufficiently more protected than your neighbour's for the burglars to target them instead, but if there's something they really want in your house you simply won't be able to stop them getting it if they are sufficiently motivated!
And of course those privacy invasions only get worse, never better. No politician dares to remove those "security" cameras and other "security" measures.
Well, I guess it's more perceived safety than security, but one of our local councils has removed a bunch of speed cameras : Council ends speed camera funding.
So it can happen, but it's almost impossible for an MP, Councillor, or other elected representative to have the backbone to stand up against any sort of "Think Of The Children" (TotC) style legislation because it may well curtail their tenure at the next election!
... When I get into "the zone" I can go for several hours at a time without really even looking up. I just don't do it every day
Yep ... Me too. But on the other side of the coin I sometimes pop off to the gym for a couple-o-hours and whilst I'm on the cross trainer, or weights, or swimming, I can often be rolling a problem around in my head too. Of course, I don't charge for Gym-time, but it's a two-way street! Unfortunately the whole concept of "a bit of give and take" gets shafted when there are those who take the piss! Sadly, Management are often also woefully lacking and tend to clamp down on everyone rather than just take the miscreants aside for a quiet word, so everyone suffers! Hey Ho!
A couple/few big revolving doors for those who have to travel with so much luggage and maybe some express turnstiles either side for those who travel light.
Nice one ... and the added benefit of actually speeding up all the slowcoach muppets as they leave the airport through what is almost always a choke point!
Some of the cheaper airlines might not be happy as it's gonna slow down their turnaround, but maybe the airports can just get better at getting luggage in and out of the hold!
Ya know the day we don't change our security laws when a plane is unsuccessfully (or even successfully) bombed, and don't freak out and read about it in the media for 2-3 months... I believe that is the day the terrorists would lose.
I'd have to agree, though that might not stop them trying, unfortunately! The IRA bombing campaign(s) in London where they bombed pubs, etc, and were the cause of there not being any waste bins (trash cans) anywhere 'cos they'd leave bombs in them too. London continued to run, though we did have the "Ring of Steel" around the city for a while, and it mutated into defending against the Nu-Terrorist threat of course. We ignored the bombs as best we could (some of my drinking places were bombed and it did give you a frisson of excitement when you went back to the newly refurbished pub!) but they still kept doing it.
So, what stopped it? Bliar will tell you it was his talking to them that ended it all, but in truth it was more likely to be down to the Twin Towers attack that brought home to those funding the IRA from the US what it was they were actually funding! The IRA's political wing, Sinn Féin, must have realised that the funding would dry up and if they want (to keep!) power they'd have to talk, and now, thank god, it's mostly over (what remains is more akin to the Mafia than freedom fighters!) and boy is that ever a good feeling! There are kids growing up in Ireland and Britain who don't remember anything of the IRA troubles now! It's likely more death and destruction has been stopped because of the IRA cease-fire than has been caused by Al-Qaeda since!
The point? I don't think it is realistically possible to stop terrorism by brute force, which is unfortunately usually the weapon of choice for the US (if all you have is a hammer every problem starts looking like a nail!). The airport Security Theatre isn't solving the problem, it's a band-aid at best. However much I find the idea distasteful I think we have to talk to them about their grievances, but if we can do non-aggressive things like cut their funding then all the better - if nothing else it will encourage them to come and talk about it!
This all reminds me of a silly story:
A bloke pops into a cafe for lunch and orders an omelette and salad, but asks them to not give him any spring onions as he doesn't like them.
Sorry, says the cafe geezer, we're fresh out of spring onions, you'll have to have it without something else instead!
From their point of view, you are denying them their beliefs. They believe that drinking beer on a Sunday is a sin. They have the moral responsibility, enforced on them by their religious hierarchy, all the way up to their Creator, who, by the way, created you too, to stop you drinking on Sunday. ...
OK, so assuming that is true, and the new law makes it illegal to do anything blasphemous to any religion, that also rules out driving or turning on lights, lifting things (such as beer from bar to mouth) on Saturdays because that's the Jewish holy day ...
That's gonna make a Weekend break in Ireland a pretty quiet time eh!
Surely all the religions are going to be suing each other for all these "Spot The Difference" infractions and the only people who are going to win will be the lawyers ... God bless 'em!
Someone needs to enlighten the companies who make this software. I think that I should pay for everything I own but I also don't think I should pay for 5 copies because I have 5 computers. Anti-virus folks are getting on the right train with this. Pay a little bit more and get 3, or even 5, license's for a product and use it that many times.
I've got a Ford Focus, but I need another one, so presumably I can just pop into the nearest Ford dealer and pick one up - hey I already bought the first one? OK, perhaps not a valid analogy, but the only reason you think it's OK to buy one and copy it four times is because it is easy to copy it! If software wasn't easily copyable you wouldn't think it odd to have to buy all the copies you need.
Where I'm going with this is the terms and conditions are (and should be) set by the seller. If some software vendor says you have to buy every copy you use and you don't like it buy an alternative, do without the extra copies, or stump up the wedge!
OK, so how does the creator of the content make a living from it if it is otherwise freely available on the internet? I guess the first few copies will likely be sold as the creator will be the only person who has them, but at some point some like minded light fingered sole puts a copy up on Copyright.Infringement.Bay and that's all she wrote for the creator, possibly in both senses of the phrase!
State support of the content industries? Why not state support of the car industry - you wanna car, wander over to yer nearest dealer and drive away in one and don't you worry about paying for it 'cos the Gov. will pick up the tab - free fuel/servicing/insurance too I guess? Why is that different (I assume you just spat yer coffee out in rage at such a stupid idea - well, welcome to my world!). Car designers, et al, are perhaps more worthy than content providers? Or is it just that you can't easily (AKA cheaply) copy a car?
OK, so maybe you just think you don't have to pay for something if stealing it (or a copy of it!) is easy? (see also not easily traceable) The problem here is twofold, as I see it.
The first fold is most definately the media moguls and their pet politicians who feel that just because they had a ticket on the gravy train that train should never stop. Well to them I say: wake up buddy, 'cos yer train's pulling into the station and it's the last stop!
The second fold is that people who illegally download content are stealing and any right minded person can see it IS theft. Because it is so obviously theft it gives power to the media moguls when they complain about it - 'cos they're right! You shouldn't be stealing content, and don't give me all that guff about copying isn't stealing either, 'cos I'm not buying it and you shouldn't be selling it! If it was some song/film/game/widget you wrote (and you wanted some money for it) it'd be a different matter and you know it!
The Pirate Bay
LOL - peg legs, pieces of eight. Nice one. Of course no one ever refers to "Pirate(d) Software", etc, do they. Nice try though - HaHaarrrrrrrr!
You don't give up ethics just because the bully's whine more ... that's still stealing - lol - I guess you don't give up your ethics if you didn't have any to start with!
Just because the whine is coming from a bully doesn't mean people aren't stealing from them either! You make it sound like it's OK to steal from a bully? Hey bud
Is it goverment allowing themseles to be maneuvred or media moguls being played to be white horses?
---
So you end up with censorship infrastructure for your use and with someone else taking blame for all of it happening. Its quite a victory!
True, never attribute to incompetence that which could be malice!
Governments trying to grab more power!? The Hell You Say! Oh ... yes ... OK ... yer, that might be happening too. Certainly having an infrastructure that gives power to the Gov isn't going to be something they fight against too hard - Lord Voldeson-er-Mandlemort's new digital bill amendment for example, that allows new powers to be drawn up without recourse to any discussions or voting on the matter in Parliament!
See also all this climate change shenanigans: That's going to give Governments even more power (and I'm not saying the climate isn't changing, or, indeed, that it might be us at least partially responsible!).
But if you go that way then they should also block search engines as they after all facilitate the search for illegal material. ...
OK, let's take a few steps back from the precipice and discuss where we actually want to draw the line, indeed, where is it sensible to draw the line. Yahoo? Google? Well, obviously not, we're still firmly on terra-absurdum there. But The Pirate Bay? Come on ... it even has "Pirate" in the damn name! That's like a shop called "Burglars-R-Us" selling lock-picks, crowbars and bricks in velvet bags - buy two items get a personally engraved cosh free! That is going to attract unwanted attention from the powers that be and it deserves to!
Assuming most of us are in the IT business we have to stop looking at illegal copying as some sort of freedom fight or otherwise worthy cause. I agree whole heartedly that the media barons are just trying to protect their outdated business model, but having people advocate, or otherwise support, the cause of software and/or content theft (ie taking without paying when payment is requested) is foolish as it all adds fervour to the content companies cries and it would appear that no government can resist the tears of a media mogul weeping into their bolly as they moan about all their lost sales, darlings!