Re:Not coloured impressed just yet
on
The Walking House
·
· Score: 1
Well why not scale it up 'a bit' so this thing is about the size of a reasonable room, then buy a bunch of them... a bed room, living room, kitchen, cinema (?), toilet facilities, etc. Then have them nuzzle up to each other to facilitate walking from room-to-room?
Best yet, you can re-configure your house so your dining room is picking up the morning sun for breakfast, and when you get home from work it's letting you watch the sunset as you eat your supper! Go to bed watching the sunset, wake up watching the sunrise?
Hmmm. Well I was assuming the seller would simply be passing on a phone+sim, but point taken. I'm sure there's a pretty lively trade in 2nd hand phones + PAYG sim cards already though!
But at the same time, you don't want to make it easy for people to achieve their goals.
... and I think it is about here that we diverge! I agree you don't want to make it easy, but if all the Security Theatre doesn't actually make it hard(er) you've made 99.99% of the population's life more of a pain (and in this case less "free"!) for no benefit!
Are you seriously comparing the idea of keeping explosives out of the public domain with this proposed clamp-down on phone ownership? I see you fell for the Security Theatre then, even though this one's so obviously flawed it's akin to a Security Puppet Show! And, FWIW, you can make some quite effective (ie effective enough!) explosives from common substances that are easily obtainable - so I agree, don't make it easy to get explosives, but don't be complacent about the fact that you've got all the C4, etc, under lock and key. In a nutshell, that's the whole point of the "Security Theatre" concept. Just because you lock up the regular explosives doesn't make you safe, but in this comparison, locking up the explosives isn't just a sop to allow the Gov. to track the population at large about their lawful business, whereas, this phone registration idea is - it must be, because a one-eyed back-bencher with conjunctivitis can see it's not going to stop terrorism!
All they got to do is create a law/rule that says you must report your phone as stolen within X many hours of you noticing it.
Wa Wa OOOOPS!
Nope... they will also have to make it law that any second hand sale of a mobile phone is also registered... much like car sales require the seller and the new buyer to notify the DVLA as the previous, and new, "registered keeper".
Oh yes... it would have to be law that anyone bringing a foriegn registered mobile into the UK would have to declare it at the border!
It's just the second act of the usual Security Theatre! If they can convince the stupid public it will keep them safe from terrorists it's easier to pass into law, but the sad fact is that it obviously won't have any such effect, because anyone hell-bent on being a suicide bomber will find some way around it! Steal or clone a phone, or get one with VOIP capability and only converse with other members of your 'cell' using the VOIP channel perhaps?
Obviously, for "suicide bomber" you may substitute "numpty doctors" who can't even make a car bomb explode! I always thought doctors were supposed to be cleverer than the rest of us, but apparently they have their fare share of muppets too!
Again, you still fail to demonstrate what NEW risks are involved with an ID system over any other system that already exists.
Maybe the point isn't that the new system will have people trying to beat it in a variety of ways, which it obviously will, or that eventually they will succeed - and I'd guess that in this case "eventually" will be very soon - the point is that if the brand new shiney chromed super boxed set of three ID Cards are no better than the existing setup, where's the gain? Not one of the claims from the Gov. of exactly what they will help with holds any water - they simply won't help, and it's going to cost an arm and a leg!
On top of that there is the worry that it might actually make things worse - if the ID Card is incontravertable proof of identity and someone clones a card with your name + ID but their fingerprint/photo/whatever then they ARE you!... or copies your fingerprint onto their fingers and commits a crime then YOU did it - no if's, no but's... it was you... the system said it was!
The card can be used to perform a match-on-card (MOC) operation. You put your finger in a reader and it asks the card if it matches. This way you can validate if someone holding the card is REALLY the card owner.
Of course, newer fingerprint readers are bound to be better than the old ones, and luckily those who may want to 'pretend' to be someone else will give up trying to beat the new readers as soon as they are foiled - they just have no staying power do they!
Two guys adrift in a boat on the ocean when one of them finds a bottle - on uncorking said bottle a genie pops out with the whole "one wish" thing (not sure why not 3 - perhaps Gov cutbacks, the credit crunch, etc?).
So, Dude one thinks for a while and makes his wish - "I want the ocean to be made of beer!"
K A Z A M : **** Ocean of Beer ****
Dude two : "Oh fscking marvellous you numbnuts - now we've gotta piss in the boat!"
I'm all for freedom of speech, otherwise we wouldn't be able to know exactly how much of an air-headed fruit-loop people like Hollywood actress Rose McGowan is!
I guess with her terrorist sympathies she'll be in gitmo soon eh! Oh no, that's right - only if the terrorism is pointed at you! I forgot.
His extradition is typical of people trying to dispose of what they do not understand or feel threatened by similar to the witch burning of ages ago.
Actually, the analogy can be carried further as the "fess-up or we'll nail you to a tree" approach to finding the truth in a court of law is not dissimilar to the whole "if she drowns she's innocent" thang too!
IMHO, not only does he not deserve "up to 70 years" for the crime, he doesn't deserve to be threatened with "up to 70 years" either!
As there doesn't appear to be any way he can get a fair trail in the US I'd say our Gov should say "Thanks - but no thanks" to the extradition request - and maybe offer to have the trial over here instead, if the US is so desperate to prosecute a bloke who appears to be a right geeky loser!
LOL - actually, I think the whole thing stinks and if China is found to be complicit in this cheating then perhaps the IOC should remove ALL China's medals.
I also note that athletes caught by the random drug testing are allowed to compete again after a few years by some countries. The UK is NOT one of those countries (See Dwain Chambers) where if you are caught taking drugs you will not compete again - and that is as it should be!
Rules is Rules - if you don't like them then you can campaign to get them changed, but you cannot ignore them!
In order for a 14 year old to have the skill to compete they must eat and breath the sport for many years prior and this can have long lasting negative effects on their health.
... and of course it is a well know fact that all the (legal?) Olympic gymnasts don't start training until they reach 16.
Much in the same way anyone wishing to protest in the "designated protest areas" must file a petition to protest from the very state they'd protest against.
LOL... yer those pesky Chinese - sure is a good job that doesn't happen in England... oh wait... that's right, Bliar and his cronies made it illegal (in 2005) to protest outside Parliament (in Parliament Square) without getting permission first!
Funniest thing is, they did it pretty much specifically to get rid of Brian Haw who had been camped outside Parliament since 2001 campaigning against the Gulf War - but because he was already there, and the amendment to the act couldn't be applied to 'events' occuring before the amendment, they STILL couldn't shift him! Even when Blair and his Nu-Labour (Nu-Danger) henchmen try to clamp down on the population's freedoms they can't get it right!
Ok... using Sellaband as the analogy (though actually, with Sellaband the people raising the money have to throw in amounts in increments of $10 - so a maximum of 5000 people - not that it matters in this context - but hell, I'm a scientist right!).... and the original plan was to give away the album as free downloads but it cost to much to give it away - there are just 3 free (& DRM free) downloads for each $50K album now.
So, Sellagame (?) starts up and some group of game writers start up a profile and throw in some screen shots or whatever to encourage people to support them - to whatever budget they think they need. If it's like Sellaband then they don't get the money until it's all raised, then they write the game - so this isn't going to be much like popping down the shops to get a game 'cos yer bored on a Saturday afternoon! How long does a game take to write? You probably have to throw in some planning time too 'cos you wouldn't want to do too much before you got the budget in case no one supports you. Gotta be 6 months... a year?
In Sellaband the punters are basically pre-buying an album for $10 and they do get a (small!) share of any sales (CD sales, download sales, & ad revenue on the site), etc, too. Is the games market sufficiently similar to the music market? I'd suggest that it isn't. Maybe games players would pay for a game before it's written? Would they? In sufficient numbers to make it work?
... based on selling the service of writing software rather than selling a disc in a box.
How is that going to work? Hmmmm. I fancy playing WoW tonight, I'll shop around for some programmers to write it for me?
More likely is that, as another poster suggests, EA, or whoever, shops around for programmers and they write the game for EA, then EA (try to) sell it - oh wait, isn't that what currently happens?
The whole concept of "if I can copy it easily it must be mine" is really just a cover for shop-lifting! If I can walk into a store and pick up some stuff and there's no obvious (or effective) security to stop me walking out without paying... then it's mine! If you cared about it you'd make the security better!
That not to say that sometimes the perveyors of such goods don't grossly over-estimate the worth of their wares, of course! But it's still not OK to steal it - just don't buy it!
I'd have to say I have some sympathy with the try-before-you-buy folks, but maybe the game writers could build something like that into the purchase process - as others have suggested - demo versions that can be unlocked etc.
Hmmmm. OK, but the corollary may well be that pretending something other than paper is any better is also folly!
As some other poster says above, you want a level of security that makes it sufficiently difficult for joe-public to not think about trying to beat it, but not so intrusive as to adversly affect people's lives too much in day-to-day use.
All the claptrap and palaver to do with air travel goes too far down the "intrusive" side of things, without actually offering any greater level of security (hence the term Security Theatre). The attempt to track every individual using ID cards, etc, is also too intrusive, and just as ineffective - whereas a simple chip containing a picture which is displayed when the passport (or credit card) is put into a reader would allow a human to easily compare the picture with the person and thereby foil most of the casual passport/credit card fraud.
Finally, you have to recognise that you CANNOT completely stop people from doing bad things and to think you can will lead to the 1984-type society that most right-minded people fear is where we are going already!
How about a NUhydroPowerPlant. These generate electrickery to power a desalination plant (and potentially surplus power too), and have a by-product of Hydrogen (which can be used to power vehicles. - or the Hydrogen is the product and the desalination is the by-product... er... it generates electric and as a by-product you get desalinated water and hydrogen... well, you get the idea anyway).
But heaven forbid they actually have to spend money to get a conviction
It would seem sensible to use the quick and cheap testing en-mass to produce a smaller set of possible matches, then increase the sensitivity (cost/time) of the testing each time until you whittle it down to a few, or couple (or even one) match.
Then do the full fat DNA comparison at whatever cost to ensure (as much as you can with DNA) you have the right person!
If you are the accused and you are innocent and they throw DNA at you, insist on a full DNA comparison (assuming you're absolutely sure there's no way they have your DNA from the scene - ie someone framed you by dropping some of your hair or something - Strewth! I shred all paper with my address on it, maybe I should burn the contents of my vacuum cleaner instead of throwing it out! - anyone got a tin-foil hat I can borrow?).
I find it quite plausible that the government knows all of this, and is resisting this investigation because they do not look forward to explaining this to every jury unto the end of time.
But isn't that the same thing, turning it round, as saying that the jury isn't up to understanding the statistical significance in the first place? Surely the jury must be able to understand any evidence presented or they're just going to flip a coin or base their decision on something else about the defendent, etc.
I understand what you're saying, and too a certain extent I agree, but actually what should happen is that the Gov. needs to find an "easy to understand" way to explain it so any/every jury can understand it - however much pain that might be - because to do otherwise is not going to result in justice for all.
If the object is to elect someone who ALWAYS votes the way they are told then I'm not sure you want anyone even vaguely clever!
You want a dolt, imbecile, automaton - indeed, a Voting Machine which will simply vote the way the System ordains. A voting robot - hey, that'll even save them $31K a year!
Slashdot Mirror
WA WA OOOPS!
Best yet, you can re-configure your house so your dining room is picking up the morning sun for breakfast, and when you get home from work it's letting you watch the sunset as you eat your supper! Go to bed watching the sunset, wake up watching the sunrise?
Sounds pretty neat actually!
But at the same time, you don't want to make it easy for people to achieve their goals.
Are you seriously comparing the idea of keeping explosives out of the public domain with this proposed clamp-down on phone ownership? I see you fell for the Security Theatre then, even though this one's so obviously flawed it's akin to a Security Puppet Show! And, FWIW, you can make some quite effective (ie effective enough!) explosives from common substances that are easily obtainable - so I agree, don't make it easy to get explosives, but don't be complacent about the fact that you've got all the C4, etc, under lock and key. In a nutshell, that's the whole point of the "Security Theatre" concept. Just because you lock up the regular explosives doesn't make you safe, but in this comparison, locking up the explosives isn't just a sop to allow the Gov. to track the population at large about their lawful business, whereas, this phone registration idea is - it must be, because a one-eyed back-bencher with conjunctivitis can see it's not going to stop terrorism!
Wa Wa OOOOPS!
Nope ... they will also have to make it law that any second hand sale of a mobile phone is also registered ... much like car sales require the seller and the new buyer to notify the DVLA as the previous, and new, "registered keeper".
Oh yes ... it would have to be law that anyone bringing a foriegn registered mobile into the UK would have to declare it at the border!
It's just the second act of the usual Security Theatre! If they can convince the stupid public it will keep them safe from terrorists it's easier to pass into law, but the sad fact is that it obviously won't have any such effect, because anyone hell-bent on being a suicide bomber will find some way around it! Steal or clone a phone, or get one with VOIP capability and only converse with other members of your 'cell' using the VOIP channel perhaps?
Obviously, for "suicide bomber" you may substitute "numpty doctors" who can't even make a car bomb explode! I always thought doctors were supposed to be cleverer than the rest of us, but apparently they have their fare share of muppets too!
Maybe the point isn't that the new system will have people trying to beat it in a variety of ways, which it obviously will, or that eventually they will succeed - and I'd guess that in this case "eventually" will be very soon - the point is that if the brand new shiney chromed super boxed set of three ID Cards are no better than the existing setup, where's the gain? Not one of the claims from the Gov. of exactly what they will help with holds any water - they simply won't help, and it's going to cost an arm and a leg!
On top of that there is the worry that it might actually make things worse - if the ID Card is incontravertable proof of identity and someone clones a card with your name + ID but their fingerprint/photo/whatever then they ARE you! ... or copies your fingerprint onto their fingers and commits a crime then YOU did it - no if's, no but's ... it was you ... the system said it was!
Er ... well, unless it's possible to falsify fingerprints?
Of course, newer fingerprint readers are bound to be better than the old ones, and luckily those who may want to 'pretend' to be someone else will give up trying to beat the new readers as soon as they are foiled - they just have no staying power do they!
Eh? The answer is "It's the Gym Lad" (see ... like "Jim Lad" ... oh pur-lease!) ... so please go right ahead and "unfix" it.
A. It be the Gym Laaaaaaaad
Two guys adrift in a boat on the ocean when one of them finds a bottle - on uncorking said bottle a genie pops out with the whole "one wish" thing (not sure why not 3 - perhaps Gov cutbacks, the credit crunch, etc?).
So, Dude one thinks for a while and makes his wish - "I want the ocean to be made of beer!"
K A Z A M : **** Ocean of Beer ****
Dude two : "Oh fscking marvellous you numbnuts - now we've gotta piss in the boat!"
I guess with her terrorist sympathies she'll be in gitmo soon eh! Oh no, that's right - only if the terrorism is pointed at you! I forgot.
LOL - you funny man!
Actually, the analogy can be carried further as the "fess-up or we'll nail you to a tree" approach to finding the truth in a court of law is not dissimilar to the whole "if she drowns she's innocent" thang too!
IMHO, not only does he not deserve "up to 70 years" for the crime, he doesn't deserve to be threatened with "up to 70 years" either!
As there doesn't appear to be any way he can get a fair trail in the US I'd say our Gov should say "Thanks - but no thanks" to the extradition request - and maybe offer to have the trial over here instead, if the US is so desperate to prosecute a bloke who appears to be a right geeky loser!
LOL - actually, I think the whole thing stinks and if China is found to be complicit in this cheating then perhaps the IOC should remove ALL China's medals.
I also note that athletes caught by the random drug testing are allowed to compete again after a few years by some countries. The UK is NOT one of those countries (See Dwain Chambers) where if you are caught taking drugs you will not compete again - and that is as it should be!
Rules is Rules - if you don't like them then you can campaign to get them changed, but you cannot ignore them!
LOL ... yer those pesky Chinese - sure is a good job that doesn't happen in England ... oh wait ... that's right, Bliar and his cronies made it illegal (in 2005) to protest outside Parliament (in Parliament Square) without getting permission first!
Funniest thing is, they did it pretty much specifically to get rid of Brian Haw who had been camped outside Parliament since 2001 campaigning against the Gulf War - but because he was already there, and the amendment to the act couldn't be applied to 'events' occuring before the amendment, they STILL couldn't shift him! Even when Blair and his Nu-Labour (Nu-Danger) henchmen try to clamp down on the population's freedoms they can't get it right!
Oh yer ... well they don't do it twice!
So, Sellagame (?) starts up and some group of game writers start up a profile and throw in some screen shots or whatever to encourage people to support them - to whatever budget they think they need. If it's like Sellaband then they don't get the money until it's all raised, then they write the game - so this isn't going to be much like popping down the shops to get a game 'cos yer bored on a Saturday afternoon! How long does a game take to write? You probably have to throw in some planning time too 'cos you wouldn't want to do too much before you got the budget in case no one supports you. Gotta be 6 months ... a year?
In Sellaband the punters are basically pre-buying an album for $10 and they do get a (small!) share of any sales (CD sales, download sales, & ad revenue on the site), etc, too. Is the games market sufficiently similar to the music market? I'd suggest that it isn't. Maybe games players would pay for a game before it's written? Would they? In sufficient numbers to make it work?
How is that going to work? Hmmmm. I fancy playing WoW tonight, I'll shop around for some programmers to write it for me? More likely is that, as another poster suggests, EA, or whoever, shops around for programmers and they write the game for EA, then EA (try to) sell it - oh wait, isn't that what currently happens?
The whole concept of "if I can copy it easily it must be mine" is really just a cover for shop-lifting! If I can walk into a store and pick up some stuff and there's no obvious (or effective) security to stop me walking out without paying ... then it's mine! If you cared about it you'd make the security better!
That not to say that sometimes the perveyors of such goods don't grossly over-estimate the worth of their wares, of course! But it's still not OK to steal it - just don't buy it!
I'd have to say I have some sympathy with the try-before-you-buy folks, but maybe the game writers could build something like that into the purchase process - as others have suggested - demo versions that can be unlocked etc.
Hmmmm. OK, but the corollary may well be that pretending something other than paper is any better is also folly!
As some other poster says above, you want a level of security that makes it sufficiently difficult for joe-public to not think about trying to beat it, but not so intrusive as to adversly affect people's lives too much in day-to-day use.
All the claptrap and palaver to do with air travel goes too far down the "intrusive" side of things, without actually offering any greater level of security (hence the term Security Theatre). The attempt to track every individual using ID cards, etc, is also too intrusive, and just as ineffective - whereas a simple chip containing a picture which is displayed when the passport (or credit card) is put into a reader would allow a human to easily compare the picture with the person and thereby foil most of the casual passport/credit card fraud.
Finally, you have to recognise that you CANNOT completely stop people from doing bad things and to think you can will lead to the 1984-type society that most right-minded people fear is where we are going already!
Or, better yet, a slimming product for babies! Right On Sister!
Hmmmm. How about a slogan for said product :-
"Don't let your podgy progeny hold you back!"
How about a NUhydro Power Plant. These generate electrickery to power a desalination plant (and potentially surplus power too), and have a by-product of Hydrogen (which can be used to power vehicles. - or the Hydrogen is the product and the desalination is the by-product ... er ... it generates electric and as a by-product you get desalinated water and hydrogen ... well, you get the idea anyway).
It would seem sensible to use the quick and cheap testing en-mass to produce a smaller set of possible matches, then increase the sensitivity (cost/time) of the testing each time until you whittle it down to a few, or couple (or even one) match.
Then do the full fat DNA comparison at whatever cost to ensure (as much as you can with DNA) you have the right person!
If you are the accused and you are innocent and they throw DNA at you, insist on a full DNA comparison (assuming you're absolutely sure there's no way they have your DNA from the scene - ie someone framed you by dropping some of your hair or something - Strewth! I shred all paper with my address on it, maybe I should burn the contents of my vacuum cleaner instead of throwing it out! - anyone got a tin-foil hat I can borrow?).
But isn't that the same thing, turning it round, as saying that the jury isn't up to understanding the statistical significance in the first place? Surely the jury must be able to understand any evidence presented or they're just going to flip a coin or base their decision on something else about the defendent, etc.
I understand what you're saying, and too a certain extent I agree, but actually what should happen is that the Gov. needs to find an "easy to understand" way to explain it so any/every jury can understand it - however much pain that might be - because to do otherwise is not going to result in justice for all.
You want a dolt, imbecile, automaton - indeed, a Voting Machine which will simply vote the way the System ordains. A voting robot - hey, that'll even save them $31K a year!