Wrong. If you own a TV (or something containing a TV tuner, such as VCR/Video Recorder) then you have to pay the TV license. (various get-outs for temporary accomodation/OAP's/etc notwithstanding)
should there be a government run TV channel and production company?
Woah there buddy... it isn't government run, but it IS government funded. There's a big difference. As someone above suggested, the BBC is the terrier nipping at the Government's heals. Sure, when there's a change of Gov, the BBC are all happy about it, but when it starts to turn nasty (see also nu-Labour's last 5 or more years!) they start a-nipping!
I'd suggest the TV-tax has had it's day and it should come directly from the general tax pot. Much cheaper to collect, administer, etc, no way to not pay (or be criminalised for not paying!).
I would always suggest a simplification of taxation rules, but unfortunately they get accountants to think up tax rules, and you can see how that turns out!
... and yet people who's mathematical/statistical skills far outwiegh mine tell me I am. I have the correct result but by the wrong reasoning, apparently. That being the case, so do you:-)
Hell.. who wants a damn goat anyway, and that car looks rubbish!
It was funny to me that the movie would suggest that an MIT senior taking advanced math classes had never heard the Monte Hall problem before, let alone that the whole room full of students had never heard the problem before.
I got asked the question in an interview and had never come across it before. My first thought was "two doors - 50/50" but the guy asking the question was such a smarmy git - you know the type, knows bloody everything - that I knew there was some trick so I said "Switch". The guy was a bit taken aback at the speed of my answer so asked why - I told him, it would seem obvious that it ought to be a 50/50 chance at first glance, so it's obviously a trick question, so I'd switch. He wasn't satisfied with that though and asked me to think about it further? Er... why? 'Cos he didn't like me ruining his fun?
Actually, I came up with an answer on the train on the way home, which everyone tells me is wrong, but it seems to me that you could look at the problem as "Pick One Door, or Pick Two Doors" - ie 1/3 vs 2/3. Your chance of it being in the one door is, obviously, 1/3, so it MUST follow that the chance of it being in the other two doors must be 2/3 - the fact that he showed you a goat behind one of the doors (that he KNEW was there) doesn't seem to alter the fact that the chance of it being behind the 2 doors is 2/3?
I still can't fathom why that is wrong?
Perhaps I should take up Psychology - 'cos I sure got that interviewer sussed PDQ, and best of all, not the crappy job!
Yeah and ask the person next to you what's going on, how many engines have failed and how the attempts to restart them are going and so on.
Why do you want to know? What ya gonna do - climb out the door and go try and restart the engines manually? They're just not going to come rushing out of the cockpit and ask "Is there a geek on board"!
Oh sorry... when you wrote... that centralization of the data will happen I took that to mean, well... will happen. My bad, reading English and all.
So, what you are actually trying to say is that it has happened. Right. Now that is indeed a fair point and, if true, would indeed make arguments about the colour of the gun (nice analagy!) a bit of a waste of time.
I'm not so sure it is all cut and dried - certainly in the UK the various methods of keeping tabs on the populous are in place, drivers license, soc No., passport, etc - and throw in being able to trace use of credit/debit cards, and of course the CCTV and number plate recognition systems - we are indeed already well inside the surveillance society many here on Slashdot try to rail against... but I don't think they have it all joined up yet, it's not all in one big DB which would allow all sorts of data mining to be done - look at the calls to fingerprint and DNA sample 4 and 5 year olds who shows signs (behaviour traits etc)that they may become criminals later.
Your arguement appears to be that we are no longer on the slippery slope, having slipped to the bottom already. I'd suggest we haven't got anywhere near the bottom of the slope yet, and there is still mileage in kicking and screaming to try and stop the slide - but that's just my opinion as I can easily imagine a more locked down Police State than the one in which we currently live leaving room for considerably more slide!
You still don't express any opinion as to whether it's good or bad though? Either you think it's a good idea and are content with the status quo, or you think it's bad and have given up trying - neither are particularly worthy in my book, but best case would have to be that you are happy with it, 'cos giving up sucks!
i happen to have the fatalist view that centralization of the data will happen, nothing you can do about it
There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! The problem is that most people don't seem to care one way or the other - I guess that's one of the bad things about living in a democracy - however right you might think you are, if more people believer otherwise you are, by definition, wrong.
You say you think it's too late but don't seem to give an opinion about whether or not you think it is a good idea? For me, I'd say it's a bad idea - much like the ID Card scheme (and accompanying central DB) in the UK. The Government has no business trying to keep track of its citizens... indeed, we are not the government's citizens, it is OUR Government! Certainly in the UK, it will cost a huge amount of money and not really offer any tangible benefit over the existing ways to identify youself. It also has the [tin foil hat on] potential to be very bad indeed.[you may now remove your tinfoil hat].
Do You Trust Your Government?
For those of us in the UK... remember the Paddington Train Crash in 1999? One of the survivors, Pam Warren, was most vocal about her damnation for the Gov for letting the railways get into such a state in the first place. A special advisor to Stephen Byers, the then Transport Secretary (I think?), sent an email to the Labour Party's Millbank HQ seeking info on Ms Warren, potentially to try and discredit her.
The fact that our Gov could even think to work in such an underhand manner must surely start alarm bells ringing when they then press ahead with ID Cards giving such spurious reasons as preventing terrorism (9/11 terrorists boarded the flights under their own names - Spanish ID Cards didn't prevent the Madrid train bombers, etc), or reducing welfare fraud (when the vast majority of welfare fraud is perpetrared by the real people over emphasising their problems rather than pretending to be someone else!).
Anyone heard about the US Presidential Candidates having their passport info hacked into? However much they swear the info will be secure, it won't be. It just won't! The only way to have the info totally secure is if there is no provision for accessing the info, which obviously defeats the object of the exercise.
Sadly, I fear you are both likely to be correct about your fatalistic views. The ID Cards are coming and they will be abused by someone - let's just hope it's organised crime who abuse it, because if it is the Government doing the abusing we will have few options to combat it!
Kinetic energy rises with speed. Kinetic energy is, indeed, inherently dangerous.
Kinetic energy also rises with mass, and yet people feel safer (actually, mostly are safer!) in larger vehicles!
So we should obviously ban speed and mass in cars. Look out for Mass Cameras on the motorways sometime soon, and best avoid that extra donut if you're going to be driving anywhere!
... and...
The faster you're going, the more likely you are to die.
That is simply not true, as demonstrated by flying being, statistically, the safest form of travel! Sure, the faster you are going when you have an accident the more likely you are to die... but on a suitably empty motorway, in reasonable conditions... you are unlikely to have an accident!
I guess I'm trying to suggest that it is the change in kinetic energy that is the problem. Sure, the faster a body is travelling the more kinetic energy it will have, which offers the potential for greater damage, but only when the kinetic energy changes - ie when you hit something.
But I don't suppose I can really argue that kinetic energy isn't inherently dangerous! LOL.
Parallel lines won't intersect in flat space, but what about parallel lines within (positively) curved spacetime? Oh dear... yes, then they may intersect.
I'm not worried about driving around going 100 if I was the only one driving.
Which is pretty much what I was suggesting (reasonably clear motorway) isn't it? So, if 100MPH is OK if you are the only one driving doesn't that suggest that speed isn't inherently dangerous? Or is that just me?
How about you?
As it 'appens, I have an allergy to accidents of all kinds, and tend to come out in a nasty (road) rash and broken bones, etc, but when there are other muppets on the road I tend to drive a lot slower, and far more defensively. I pretty much assume that all the other road users are suicidal and hell bent on crashing into, or jumping out in front of, me and give them a wide berth accordingly, but when I've got the road to myself I will indeed make like a towel, and press on!
No, actually, I said exactly that! Of course it would be stupid to drive faster than the conditions warrant - conditions being everything from (but not limited too - for the pedants!) traffic, weather, light, vehicle, driver, star sign, wind direction, latest lunar eclipse!.
If you agree that 100MPH on an empty motorway... yada yada yada... isn't inherently unsafe, indeed could be deemed safer than 40MPH outside an infants school at kicking out time, then you have agreed that speed isn't inherently dangerous.
Hmmm. The severity of damage sustained in a crash will indeed be related to the relative speeds of this involved, but the amount of damage sustained has no bearing on how likely the accident is to start with.
Statistics eh! If the likelhood of accidents was directly proportional to speed you would expect motorways to have more accidents than the slower "A" and "B" roads, but this isn't the case, indeed motorways are the safest roads to drive on.
Also, there are fewer accidents on the German autobahns (unrestricted) than on the Portugese motorways (lowest speed limit in Europe) which seems to contradict the results of the survey!
The Survey (severity and likelyhood):
"Both types of studies found evidence that crash rate increases faster with an increase in speed on minor roads than on major roads."
Of course speed will be a factor - if you are stationary you are less likely to be in an accident (but it still may, and does, happen) - but the abstract might suggest (actually, it says it!) that speed is less of a factor in accidents on major roads? Oh... hang on... isn't that what I said? Facts Schmacts eh!
"vehicle that moved (much) faster than other traffic around it, had a higher crash rate"
Wait a minute... that's speed differential, not speed per se. That's one of the reasons why motorways are safer at speed than minor roads, everyone is going in the same direction at roughly the same speed.
KE = 1/2*M*V*V: kinetic energy rises as the square of the speed.
Sorry, but it is quite obvious that if you come to a sudden stop that the speed you were travelling at will have an adverse effect on the amount of damage you are likely to sustain, but that doesn't mean that it was the speed that was dangerous.
If speed were inherently dangerous then flying would be somewhat less popular than it is! The fact that there are seldom any survivors when an airplane crashes doesn't make you suddenly say flying is unsafe because of the speed, or indeed the height, at which they fly. For safety reasons, all flights will now be restricted to 10 feet off the ground and an airspeed of 70 MPH - oh please don't suggest it to the UK Government as they may well enforce it!
... well-trained drivers with excellent reflexes might be capable of driving at high speeds safely...
Sure, suitably clear road, suitable weather conditions, suitable light, suitable car, suitable driver - kinda what I was hinting at. Sure, most drivers aren't as good as they think they are but cars have come on in leaps and bounds since the arbitrary 70MPH limit was imposed. I try to drive within the prevailing conditions and often drive slower than the posted limit because it is safer to do so.
How many places in the world is it even legal to drive that fast--much less safe?
Well, Germany springs to mind, Ohio during the day (was it Ohio that has unrestricted speed limits during the day - or have they revoked that rule already!).
Is it safe? The Government, well ours in the UK anyway, have been doing a great job trying to make people think that speed is somehow inherently dangerous. Heads up folks... it isn't!
On a (reasonably) clear motorway in good weather in a well maintained car and 100MPH is actually fine. On the other side of the coin, 20MPH outside a junior school at chucking out time may well be the posted speed limit but could be way to fast! This is the basic reason why most people have no respect for the law when it comes to speed limits - 99.9% of the time the posted limit isn't appropriate, and yet they try and enforce the limits 100% of the time - exactly who are you protecting by giving a ticket to someone passing a school (often now a 20 limit in the UK) at 25 or 30 MPH at midnight? It's farcical!
We've had variable speed limits on the M25 for years now... why not have a 15MPH limit by schools when it's the times that the kids arrive and leave school (in mummy's humvee usually!), 20MPH for the rest of a normal school day, + 1hr either side of school time, and 30MPH (or whatever is the prevailing limit in the area) the rest of the time?
... but where is the line? What are the limits? What about civil liberties, and rights, and all the stuff we as citizens want PROTECTED?
Well, my point is that determining where the line should be drawn is not the role of the Police Force. It is their job to try and solve crime for us, and as new technology and techniques appear they should evaluate them to see if they may be useful, and if they are they should ask for them!
The Politicians (hallowed be thy name) should be the ones drawing the line, but unfortunately they are often too enthralled with the idea of being re-elected to worry about the consequence, assuming they even understand the consequences! Look at it this way: it is dangerous to re-wire your own house if you don't have the correct qualifications, hell, connecting a plug can be dangerous if you do it wrong... but it's OK because I know what I'm doing!
The Policitians can't see how it could be dangerous because they only have our best interests at heart (and being able to vote for their own salary and pensions and claim anything on expenses - and a cushy number as an unelected MEP if they get caught with their fingers in the till, of course!) - they simply don't grasp the concept that their replacements might not be so altruistic, or indeed that whatever they think might be our best interests might not actually be best!
I simply don't trust Politicians any more - I used to, you know there was a case in the 60s (I think) of some politician who gave his travel warrents to his wife and son who used them to travel to London for a day out, and when this was discovered the politician was fired and never worked in politics again.
Would that happen now? Would it hell!
To be fair to the Police, that is their job! They should be advocating things that will make their job easier - more cameras, DNA/fingerpint DBs, speed cameras, the whole nine yards - its the Politicians job to tell them "NO, not on my watch!".
Unfortunately, our politicians are too busy feathering their nests to make any reasonable decisions.
All the lift capacity to get it into space and...then what? If we set up a moon base, we have to supply it. That's not going to be cheap. A Mars trip...even more expensive.
Oh No... It's going to be a bit tricky!
Who's going to pay for all this technology?
Well, if we don't get off this rock we ALL are, and the sooner we get started the cheaper it is likely to be! At some point the World is going to need all the money it generates just to try and keep the ever expanding population alive - at that point it will be even more difficult to raise the funds required. About now really is the right time to start forging a path to the stars - well, let's start with our satellite and neighbours!
Can I get my money back if the band doesn't produce an album in some amount of time?
Up until the point where the artist raised the last ten bucks and hits $50000 you can withdraw your parts and either put them into another act on Sellaband, or take the money out of the site altogether (some minor charge for that I guess, so don't do it $10 at a time!).
What if the album just really sucks?
Well, I guess you get to decide not to support that artist if they decide to try for a second album on Sellaband - and there are a few who have opened second Artist Profiles after hitting the $50K so they can continue to attract new believers/fans.
I'm afraid the fellow's not going to get much business.
I think Sellaband have raised $1.5M so far from people willing to pre-pay $10 for a Limited Edition CD, and a small share of the profits. I guess, globally, that could be "not much business" but for a small start-up it really not bad!
Yer.. Trail were indeed on Sellaband, and were in the top 3 or so bands on the site - actually, they would probably have made the $50K by now and be recording, but they decided they didn't like some of the terms and conditions and so left to try SliceThePie. It's a shame - I went and saw them play a number of times and really liked their music, but they kinda left a funny taste after the way they left Sellaband. Good luck to them though, they've definately got something!
Not sure where you get "randonly plonk down a tenner and hope" from though. You get to hear a bunch of songs from the Artists - including anything they may have up on mySpace, or AmieStreet, or indeed STP, and a myriad of other such sites. Along with normal gigs around the place (I've been over to Amsterdam to see Sellaband acts, and many mainland Europeans have come over to London - people were over in Truth or Consequences for a festival a Weekend or so back + gigs in Boston, Sydney... all over) some of the Artists regularly play/played internet gigs allowing the Believers and potential Believers to see and hear them play - indeed just last night at The Bedford in Balham, Dan Ward-Murphy and his excellent band did just that.
On top of that, if you change your mind, up to the $50K point, you can take your money out (all the money is held in ESCROW in Germany).
Yeah, fuck the elderly and infirm. Why the hell should they get to take belongings with them when they travel?
LOL. Nice one! Of course it's not like the elderly and infirm are already able to make special arrangements to travel - like why oh why don't airlines provide assistance for people like that - like lay on little golf cart things to carry them to the gate etc... oh wait... THEY DO!
I've seen presumably otherwise totally rational people turn up to check in with bags that are a two-man lift! See the big fellas rush over to help the pretty little ladies (Need help ma'am?) and then struggle with the cases themselves! LOL!
Slashdot Mirror
Woah there buddy ... it isn't government run, but it IS government funded . There's a big difference. As someone above suggested, the BBC is the terrier nipping at the Government's heals. Sure, when there's a change of Gov, the BBC are all happy about it, but when it starts to turn nasty (see also nu-Labour's last 5 or more years!) they start a-nipping!
I'd suggest the TV-tax has had it's day and it should come directly from the general tax pot. Much cheaper to collect, administer, etc, no way to not pay (or be criminalised for not paying!).
I would always suggest a simplification of taxation rules, but unfortunately they get accountants to think up tax rules, and you can see how that turns out!
Hell .. who wants a damn goat anyway, and that car looks rubbish!
I got asked the question in an interview and had never come across it before. My first thought was "two doors - 50/50" but the guy asking the question was such a smarmy git - you know the type, knows bloody everything - that I knew there was some trick so I said "Switch". The guy was a bit taken aback at the speed of my answer so asked why - I told him, it would seem obvious that it ought to be a 50/50 chance at first glance, so it's obviously a trick question, so I'd switch. He wasn't satisfied with that though and asked me to think about it further? Er ... why? 'Cos he didn't like me ruining his fun?
Actually, I came up with an answer on the train on the way home, which everyone tells me is wrong, but it seems to me that you could look at the problem as "Pick One Door, or Pick Two Doors" - ie 1/3 vs 2/3. Your chance of it being in the one door is, obviously, 1/3, so it MUST follow that the chance of it being in the other two doors must be 2/3 - the fact that he showed you a goat behind one of the doors (that he KNEW was there) doesn't seem to alter the fact that the chance of it being behind the 2 doors is 2/3?
I still can't fathom why that is wrong?
Perhaps I should take up Psychology - 'cos I sure got that interviewer sussed PDQ, and best of all, not the crappy job!
And you should never run with them.
Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.
Why do you want to know? What ya gonna do - climb out the door and go try and restart the engines manually? They're just not going to come rushing out of the cockpit and ask "Is there a geek on board"!
A toast to our wives and girlfriends :-
May They Never Meet!
So, what you are actually trying to say is that it has happened. Right. Now that is indeed a fair point and, if true, would indeed make arguments about the colour of the gun (nice analagy!) a bit of a waste of time.
I'm not so sure it is all cut and dried - certainly in the UK the various methods of keeping tabs on the populous are in place, drivers license, soc No., passport, etc - and throw in being able to trace use of credit/debit cards, and of course the CCTV and number plate recognition systems - we are indeed already well inside the surveillance society many here on Slashdot try to rail against ... but I don't think they have it all joined up yet, it's not all in one big DB which would allow all sorts of data mining to be done - look at the calls to fingerprint and DNA sample 4 and 5 year olds who shows signs (behaviour traits etc)that they may become criminals later.
Your arguement appears to be that we are no longer on the slippery slope, having slipped to the bottom already. I'd suggest we haven't got anywhere near the bottom of the slope yet, and there is still mileage in kicking and screaming to try and stop the slide - but that's just my opinion as I can easily imagine a more locked down Police State than the one in which we currently live leaving room for considerably more slide!
You still don't express any opinion as to whether it's good or bad though? Either you think it's a good idea and are content with the status quo, or you think it's bad and have given up trying - neither are particularly worthy in my book, but best case would have to be that you are happy with it, 'cos giving up sucks!
There is only nothing you can do about it when it has happened - if we are still at the will happen stage then there is still something that can be done to try and stop it! The problem is that most people don't seem to care one way or the other - I guess that's one of the bad things about living in a democracy - however right you might think you are, if more people believer otherwise you are, by definition, wrong.
You say you think it's too late but don't seem to give an opinion about whether or not you think it is a good idea? For me, I'd say it's a bad idea - much like the ID Card scheme (and accompanying central DB) in the UK. The Government has no business trying to keep track of its citizens ... indeed, we are not the government's citizens, it is OUR Government! Certainly in the UK, it will cost a huge amount of money and not really offer any tangible benefit over the existing ways to identify youself. It also has the [tin foil hat on] potential to be very bad indeed.[you may now remove your tinfoil hat].
Do You Trust Your Government? ... remember the Paddington Train Crash in 1999? One of the survivors, Pam Warren, was most vocal about her damnation for the Gov for letting the railways get into such a state in the first place. A special advisor to Stephen Byers, the then Transport Secretary (I think?), sent an email to the Labour Party's Millbank HQ seeking info on Ms Warren, potentially to try and discredit her.
For those of us in the UK
The fact that our Gov could even think to work in such an underhand manner must surely start alarm bells ringing when they then press ahead with ID Cards giving such spurious reasons as preventing terrorism (9/11 terrorists boarded the flights under their own names - Spanish ID Cards didn't prevent the Madrid train bombers, etc), or reducing welfare fraud (when the vast majority of welfare fraud is perpetrared by the real people over emphasising their problems rather than pretending to be someone else!).
Anyone heard about the US Presidential Candidates having their passport info hacked into? However much they swear the info will be secure, it won't be. It just won't! The only way to have the info totally secure is if there is no provision for accessing the info, which obviously defeats the object of the exercise.
Sadly, I fear you are both likely to be correct about your fatalistic views. The ID Cards are coming and they will be abused by someone - let's just hope it's organised crime who abuse it, because if it is the Government doing the abusing we will have few options to combat it!
Kinetic energy rises with speed. Kinetic energy is, indeed, inherently dangerous.
Kinetic energy also rises with mass, and yet people feel safer (actually, mostly are safer!) in larger vehicles!
So we should obviously ban speed and mass in cars. Look out for Mass Cameras on the motorways sometime soon, and best avoid that extra donut if you're going to be driving anywhere!
That is simply not true, as demonstrated by flying being, statistically, the safest form of travel! Sure, the faster you are going when you have an accident the more likely you are to die ... but on a suitably empty motorway, in reasonable conditions ... you are unlikely to have an accident!
But I don't suppose I can really argue that kinetic energy isn't inherently dangerous! LOL.
Parallel lines won't intersect in flat space, but what about parallel lines within (positively) curved spacetime? Oh dear ... yes, then they may intersect.
Which is pretty much what I was suggesting (reasonably clear motorway) isn't it? So, if 100MPH is OK if you are the only one driving doesn't that suggest that speed isn't inherently dangerous? Or is that just me?
How about you?
As it 'appens, I have an allergy to accidents of all kinds, and tend to come out in a nasty (road) rash and broken bones, etc, but when there are other muppets on the road I tend to drive a lot slower, and far more defensively. I pretty much assume that all the other road users are suicidal and hell bent on crashing into, or jumping out in front of, me and give them a wide berth accordingly, but when I've got the road to myself I will indeed make like a towel, and press on!
"On a (reasonably) clear motorway ..."
No, actually, I said exactly that! Of course it would be stupid to drive faster than the conditions warrant - conditions being everything from (but not limited too - for the pedants!) traffic, weather, light, vehicle, driver, star sign, wind direction, latest lunar eclipse!.
If you agree that 100MPH on an empty motorway ... yada yada yada ... isn't inherently unsafe, indeed could be deemed safer than 40MPH outside an infants school at kicking out time, then you have agreed that speed isn't inherently dangerous.
Statistics eh! If the likelhood of accidents was directly proportional to speed you would expect motorways to have more accidents than the slower "A" and "B" roads, but this isn't the case, indeed motorways are the safest roads to drive on.
Also, there are fewer accidents on the German autobahns (unrestricted) than on the Portugese motorways (lowest speed limit in Europe) which seems to contradict the results of the survey!
The Survey (severity and likelyhood): ... hang on ... isn't that what I said? Facts Schmacts eh!
"Both types of studies found evidence that crash rate increases faster with an increase in speed on minor roads than on major roads."
Of course speed will be a factor - if you are stationary you are less likely to be in an accident (but it still may, and does, happen) - but the abstract might suggest (actually, it says it!) that speed is less of a factor in accidents on major roads? Oh
"vehicle that moved (much) faster than other traffic around it, had a higher crash rate" ... that's speed differential, not speed per se. That's one of the reasons why motorways are safer at speed than minor roads, everyone is going in the same direction at roughly the same speed.
Wait a minute
Sorry, but it is quite obvious that if you come to a sudden stop that the speed you were travelling at will have an adverse effect on the amount of damage you are likely to sustain, but that doesn't mean that it was the speed that was dangerous.
If speed were inherently dangerous then flying would be somewhat less popular than it is! The fact that there are seldom any survivors when an airplane crashes doesn't make you suddenly say flying is unsafe because of the speed, or indeed the height, at which they fly. For safety reasons, all flights will now be restricted to 10 feet off the ground and an airspeed of 70 MPH - oh please don't suggest it to the UK Government as they may well enforce it!
Sure, suitably clear road, suitable weather conditions, suitable light, suitable car, suitable driver - kinda what I was hinting at. Sure, most drivers aren't as good as they think they are but cars have come on in leaps and bounds since the arbitrary 70MPH limit was imposed. I try to drive within the prevailing conditions and often drive slower than the posted limit because it is safer to do so.
Well, Germany springs to mind, Ohio during the day (was it Ohio that has unrestricted speed limits during the day - or have they revoked that rule already!).
Is it safe? The Government, well ours in the UK anyway, have been doing a great job trying to make people think that speed is somehow inherently dangerous. Heads up folks ... it isn't!
On a (reasonably) clear motorway in good weather in a well maintained car and 100MPH is actually fine. On the other side of the coin, 20MPH outside a junior school at chucking out time may well be the posted speed limit but could be way to fast! This is the basic reason why most people have no respect for the law when it comes to speed limits - 99.9% of the time the posted limit isn't appropriate, and yet they try and enforce the limits 100% of the time - exactly who are you protecting by giving a ticket to someone passing a school (often now a 20 limit in the UK) at 25 or 30 MPH at midnight? It's farcical!
We've had variable speed limits on the M25 for years now ... why not have a 15MPH limit by schools when it's the times that the kids arrive and leave school (in mummy's humvee usually!), 20MPH for the rest of a normal school day, + 1hr either side of school time, and 30MPH (or whatever is the prevailing limit in the area) the rest of the time?
Well, my point is that determining where the line should be drawn is not the role of the Police Force. It is their job to try and solve crime for us, and as new technology and techniques appear they should evaluate them to see if they may be useful, and if they are they should ask for them!
The Politicians (hallowed be thy name) should be the ones drawing the line, but unfortunately they are often too enthralled with the idea of being re-elected to worry about the consequence, assuming they even understand the consequences! Look at it this way: it is dangerous to re-wire your own house if you don't have the correct qualifications, hell, connecting a plug can be dangerous if you do it wrong ... but it's OK because I know what I'm doing!
The Policitians can't see how it could be dangerous because they only have our best interests at heart (and being able to vote for their own salary and pensions and claim anything on expenses - and a cushy number as an unelected MEP if they get caught with their fingers in the till, of course!) - they simply don't grasp the concept that their replacements might not be so altruistic, or indeed that whatever they think might be our best interests might not actually be best!
I simply don't trust Politicians any more - I used to, you know there was a case in the 60s (I think) of some politician who gave his travel warrents to his wife and son who used them to travel to London for a day out, and when this was discovered the politician was fired and never worked in politics again.
Would that happen now? Would it hell!
Unfortunately, our politicians are too busy feathering their nests to make any reasonable decisions.
Hmmmm. Not sure I agree with you there. I'd agree it has familiarity on it's side, but it is a myth that Windows is somehow inherently easier to use!
Oh No ... It's going to be a bit tricky!
Who's going to pay for all this technology?
Well, if we don't get off this rock we ALL are, and the sooner we get started the cheaper it is likely to be! At some point the World is going to need all the money it generates just to try and keep the ever expanding population alive - at that point it will be even more difficult to raise the funds required. About now really is the right time to start forging a path to the stars - well, let's start with our satellite and neighbours!
Up until the point where the artist raised the last ten bucks and hits $50000 you can withdraw your parts and either put them into another act on Sellaband, or take the money out of the site altogether (some minor charge for that I guess, so don't do it $10 at a time!).
What if the album just really sucks?
Well, I guess you get to decide not to support that artist if they decide to try for a second album on Sellaband - and there are a few who have opened second Artist Profiles after hitting the $50K so they can continue to attract new believers/fans.
I think Sellaband have raised $1.5M so far from people willing to pre-pay $10 for a Limited Edition CD, and a small share of the profits. I guess, globally, that could be "not much business" but for a small start-up it really not bad!
Not sure where you get "randonly plonk down a tenner and hope" from though. You get to hear a bunch of songs from the Artists - including anything they may have up on mySpace, or AmieStreet, or indeed STP, and a myriad of other such sites. Along with normal gigs around the place (I've been over to Amsterdam to see Sellaband acts, and many mainland Europeans have come over to London - people were over in Truth or Consequences for a festival a Weekend or so back + gigs in Boston, Sydney ... all over) some of the Artists regularly play/played internet gigs allowing the Believers and potential Believers to see and hear them play - indeed just last night at The Bedford in Balham, Dan Ward-Murphy and his excellent band did just that.
On top of that, if you change your mind, up to the $50K point, you can take your money out (all the money is held in ESCROW in Germany).
LOL. Nice one! Of course it's not like the elderly and infirm are already able to make special arrangements to travel - like why oh why don't airlines provide assistance for people like that - like lay on little golf cart things to carry them to the gate etc ... oh wait ... THEY DO!
I've seen presumably otherwise totally rational people turn up to check in with bags that are a two-man lift! See the big fellas rush over to help the pretty little ladies (Need help ma'am?) and then struggle with the cases themselves! LOL!