You know your house can be compromised with a brick.
True, but, certainly in the UK, that would be "breaking and entering" or some such, and is somewhat frowned upon. Now if I ask you for your door keys and you hand them over, you haven't got a leg to stand on!
IFAIK, the way RFID works is that a transmitter asks for your RFID number, and your helpful embedded RFID chips just gives it out. So the burglar is asking for your "house keys", and you are just handing them over! I'm not sure this would be "breaking and entering" anymore, as they don't have to force entry. Still going to be a bunch of stealing going on I suppose.
IMHO, it's just plain stupid, and quite possibly "really stupid".
You see, the grand parent said that RFID chips had been tested in animals for years, right, and that animals live for 10 years. Then, and this is the funny part, the parent replied, right, saying... five, with the implant. See.
Well, he was implying that the usual lifespan of 10 years would be shortened by the implanting of the RFID chip to five years.
The aim is to encourage supporters to renew their passports in May, ahead of the linkage between the passport and the National Identity Register. Last month the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said that "anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage [...] will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect." It is possible to renew your passport at any time without having to pretend the dog ate it.
How, exactly, do you think will it make "identity theft and creating fake IDs a lot easier?" It's currently trivial, since there's no consistent ID nation-wide. How can it get worse?
OK, at the moment someone might have to fake/forge a number of documents (in the UK at least) such as a recent utilities bill in their name, driving licence, passport, etc but even having done so, the people looking at these document know there's a chance that they may be forged and are (hopefully!) keeping an eye out for anything suspicous.
Fast forward to "2084" (as 1984 has already passed!) and you rock up with a forged ID Card. The bozo looking at this card is going to "know" that it is genuine (because our wonderful leaders have told us it will be!) and not bother looking any further. Indeed, if someone has a card with their face/iris/fingerprint on it and your name (and id number), he is, to all intents and purposes, you! You will now have to prove that you are you... and how will you do that?
Just wondering if you know what happens for British citizens who don't live in the UK?
I have a British passport which expires in 2008 but I don't live there. When I want it renewed will I be required to get an ID card?
I don't even know the proceedure for getting a passport for "expats" now, but I do know that if you apply for a renewal (in the UK) before your old one expires they will credit it with up to (I think) 9 months extra so you won't lose too much if you apply now.
Much like the UK ID Card coming soon. The Gov said it would be optional to have one, then tried to rail-road anyone getting a passport (new or renewal) into having one. Luckily, the Lords put a stop to that, and initially at least it will be optional for you to take the ID Card when you get your next passport. Of course, you will still be charged for it, and all the information will still be logged into the central database whether you take the card or not.
I renewed my passport this year so I won't be forced into having an ID Card for 10 years! I'd strongly suggest that you consider doing the same!
OK. Maybe it wasn't too clear. I was trying to inform the UK peeps that as of sometime next year (I think) you will be coerced into purchasing an ID Card when you renew your passport. If you renew it before then (like I have) you will not.
Just like drivers license and passports, credit cards, the medicare card?
A driver's license allows one to drive, a passport allows you to travel abroad, a credit card allows you by purchase items (and pay for them later), and a medicare card (presumably) allows you access to some form of medical assistance.
Now an ID Card... hmmmmm. What might I be able to do with that that I can't already do with the items I already own. Nothing springs to mind. I can open a bank account. I can travel on a bus or a plane and I can still drive my car. I can get health care.
What, pray, does an ID Card do for me that isn't already possible?
... and don't bother with any of the asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, terrorists, ID theft rubbish spouted by all and sundry as these have been debunked more times than I care to remember.
As someone else responded above, the owning/carrying of the card isn't the worst of it. We're mostly techy people here right. Hands up all those who think this central repository of all our information is going to be...
a) Ready on time
b) Completed to budget
c) Secure
It's such a huge boondoggle for the various companies scrabbling for the contracts that a lot of people have a vested interest in seeing it through. I have heard (but am unable to find a link!) that the Lab Gov had promised the contracts to various companies before it all got through parliament.
It is going to cost billions, like the Millenium Dome, and be about as useful!
We had ID cards during the Second World War and after the war the Goverment of the day decided we didn't need them anymore. Tell me why we need them now.
... you'd have read that it is NOT compulsory to carry the ID card in question at all times.
Much like the UK ID Card coming soon. The Gov said it would be optional to have one, then tried to rail-road anyone getting a passport (new or renewal) into having one. Luckily, the Lords put a stop to that, and initially at least it will be optional for you to take the ID Card when you get your next passport. Of course, you will still be charged for it, and all the information will still be logged into the central database whether you take the card or not.
Of course, first it's optional to have one, or too many people would object! The next step is obviously to make it a legal requirement to own such a card, but it would never be mandatory to carry it. Give it a couple of years however, and a new law WILL make it an offence not to carry your ID Card.
It's common sense (for the Gov!). There's no point having ID Cards unless everyone has them, and there's no point having them unless everyone carries the damn things. Of course, what's the point in carrying them if no one ever asks to see them...
Papers please
It won't help the public with their normal everyday lives, but it will help the Gov. control you.
Just Say NO!
It poses a danger to everyone on the road when he taunts and then successfully pisses off another driver. It was not his business. It was a matter for the police.
Hmmmm. OK. I didn't "taunt" her. In the same way I may try and inform the driver of another car if their door isn't closed properly, or they have a tail light out, or if they have a flat (or underinflated) tyre, or haven't got their seatbelt on, I was trying to show that there was a safety problem with her vehicle (in this case, the driver was impaired). My guess is that she's already had a "bad day" and was just venting her spleen at the first unfortunate who crossed her path.
As it happens, I was honestly trying to warn her about the possible consequences to her (eg a fine, and soon to be points on her licence) as to the safety aspect. I would have to agree with another poster to this thread that I don't see talking on the phone to be any more distracting than changing a tape, tuning the radio, lighting a cigerette, or heaven forbid, having your children in the car!
Was it my business. Obviously, opinion is divided on this one! Given that I was trying to help her not get caught, I'd say my intentions were those of the "good samaritan", but I can quite see how she might have felt "taunted", so perhaps I'd be better off ignoring anyone who might be heading for trouble and concentrate on Number One!
Or maybe she was just trying to deflect the fact that she knew she was in the wrong because he (or in this case "she") who shouts loudest, is invariably in the right!
my MG Midget I drive is literally smaller in height (and I'm talking top of windscreen, not bonnet) than some wheels of articulated lorries
I'd like to see a maximum height restriction for the Right Hand (AKA "Fast") lane of motorways and dual carriage ways in the UK. This would keep vans, MPVs, and most 4X4s out of the way and allow people in sensible vehicles to press on. It's not just the intimidation of size (which actually I don't have a problem with, it's that they obscure the view for the people presumably driving the fastest!
Some poor people live on street but thats really bad.
You think that's bad!
I had to drive home at 60mph, in an electric car, wearing sandles, put the car on the charger when I got home, harvest some hemp and weave my own supper before going to bed in a hammock with my hairy wife... er... on the central reservation... er... red wine or something...
b) soccer moms in behemoth SUVs stop talking on their phones long enough to see you.
Whilst driving to Guildford from Kingston yesterday morning, on the A3, I was being tailed by a large people carrier with a "lady" holding a mobile (cell) phone to her ear. I indicated that I had seen her vehicular faux pax in the usual way (pretended to hold a phone to my ear, etc).
She pulled up along side me and wound down her window to harange me whilst we were both driving along in heavy traffic at 30 or 40 MPH. Apparently, it's none of my "f***ing" business what the numb-nuts in the vehicle behind is doing and I should, apparently, mind my own "f***ing" business (now you know why I put "lady" in quotes!).
It was at this point that I noticed the small and frightened looking, girl in the front passenger seat.
With people like this on the road I think I'll stick to cars thanks very much!
Interestingly, there was just the psycho-mom and the small girl in the 7 seater people carrier too... so, two stereotypes for the price of one! Best value on the A3 today! Get 'em while they're hot, they're lovely!
Being a driver of a small car with only two seats, I'd like to see this concept flipped on it's head, and offer a lane to people who have fewer than a certain number of empty seats! This might keep the massive vehicles, like people-carriers, with just Mum + baby Tarquin or Jocaster, out of the way!
You were using too much of your energy to push up, rather than forward. Your feet may leave the ground, the trick is to not have to let most of your weight change height too much in any given stride (up too high, you have to catch it on the way down. Down too low, gotta push it back up). Saves lots of energy.
Tell that to the Kangaroos! They have one of the most efficient bidepal locomotion stratagies because as they land they stretch two massive tendons and store all the kinetic energy, which they then use to bounce themselves aloft once more.
From the linked page...
Running is a strange means of locomotion that involves bouncing up and down, as well as moving forward. This bouncing is aided by the elastic nature of the Achilles tendon at the back of the foot, which acts like an elastic band, stretching when we put our foot down, and then pulling back to its relaxed length to propel us upward. This conserves a considerable amount of energy during running, raising the energy efficiency from 25 to 40 percent or more. And training increases the elasticity of the tendon, whereas aging decreases elasticity, making running less efficient. Kangaroos are the ultimate masters of this pogo stick effect, which enables them to increase from 5 to 20 kilometers per hour without using any extra energy -- just more bounce.
I, for one, welcome our robotic bouncing kangaroo overlords.
Interestingly, in some of France and certainly in Rome it is considered "bad form" to leave your hand brake on when parked on the street, because it is normal for someone to shunt the cars out of the way to make room for themselves to get in or out.
Why would the manufacturers be spending all that money putting bumpers on your cars if you weren't supposed to use them!
I also saw a small car pull up in a narrow street in London and 4 big chaps get out. They then lifted the car up and put it in a very narrow space. Very funny!
Immigration Once an ID system is in place, you have a way to uniquely identify everyone in the country. Those from abroad would be given a temporary ID when they pass through Customs/Immigration. Basically, it makes it damn easy to identify those who have entered the country illegaly as they will have no ID and no biometric data held.
You don't need to CARRY your ID card, because a check can be made against some aspect of your biometrics quickly and easily.
Uniquely identify. Hmmm. It is possible to fake fingerprints. This means I could have your prints. They check me out and I'm OK because you have a valid ID card. It is already illegal to hire illegal immigrants, yet people still do it. It won't make a blind bit of difference.
Terrorism
OK, I think you realise it won't stop them. It might make it quicker to find out who was involved, but actually they found out who they were pretty damn quickly anyway! That's a lot of money for a day or so less in the investigation!
Benefit Fraud
Wa Wa Ooops. The majority of benefit fraud is miss-representation, that's people (the actual people, with ID cards) saying they have a bad back when it's actually got better.
We have to wake up and smell the coffee. I agree with another poster - the Lords should have made the Gov use the Parliament Act. And the Gov want to abolish the Lords... Hmmmm.
The only hope we have is that they cock it up so badly it never gets completed. This is also quite likely, but in doing so they will probably have collected a lot of the data and it will end up in the wrong hands!
Infrastructure, Robotic Builders, er, Profit?
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's about time!
Here's what I'd do... start by setting up the infrastructure for life on the Moon. We have a pretty good communications and GPS network on Earth, let's setup something similar for the Moon allowing high bandwidth communications and accurate location for anywhere on the Moon.
Right, now we'll know where we are and we can communicate with Earth. That's a good start, and something we can kick off now.
Next, the Moon Base. I think others have said it's probably best if we can get it underground. Can we not send a bunch of remote vehicles to dig out a bunker? Do we know if there are already any caverns we could tunnel into perhaps? I know there are problems with earth (er, moon?) moving equipement in low G, but the devices could anchor themselves (fire exposive bolts to shoot anchors into the ground?), then dig.
And all this without sending/risking any people yet!
Also in orbit around the Moon should be a Space Station. We should have something similar orbiting Earth. Send stuff up to the Earth Station using whatever technology gets us out of the gravity well the best. Have a different vehicle that chugs back and forth between Earth and the Moon, and another vehicle designed specifically for getting from the Moon Station to the Moon and back (and this _may_ be similar to the Earth vehicle).
Could we build a Moon Space Elevator, or use other technologies in the lower G to make getting up and down from/to the Moon cheaper/quicker/safer?
Once we have the Moon Base (Alpha?) built, we should send unmanned vehicles with supplies before we send any people, so when they arrive there is plenty of ozygen, water, and food.
We should probably at least double up on the Moon and Earth Stations, and the craft that ply the various routes (Earth to/from Earth Orbit, Earth orbit to/from Moon Orbit, Moon Orbit to/from Moon)
So a lot of this is directly (re-)usable for a Mars Mission. The Earth Station and Earth to Orbit systems would be the same. The communications and location system and the Mars Station could be identical technology, and when we get to Mars, it's all been in use on or around the Moon for 5 or 10 years!
When you are faster, you control the engagement. You can run at any time, and they cannot.
Usually/Often true yes, but not always true. In the Falklands conflict the Argentinian fighter pilots in their supersonic jets couldn't use their afterburners during the dogfights with the British subsonic Harriers because they were right on the edge of their range, and using the afterburners meant they didn't have enough fuel to get back to Argentina!
Well yes and no [lol] because I don't disagree with everything you say!
today WITH copyright most musicians make little or no money because they WAIT fot the organization to take over their copyright and exploit them, and they HOPE and HOPE that the record company will invest as much in him as they did for U2. But it never happens.
I have a number of friends in bands, for example The Lies and Bullet Galloway, who are taking this very approach. I can see them hoping to get "signed" and I realise that having talent just isn't enough, but it is their choice to take that route. Other bands are more canny and are able to use different routes to make a living, like Marillion [*shudder*] who, granted, had mainstream "fame" first, but now have their fanbase pay in advance for the next album and use the money to make the recording and press the CDs. So there are bands out there who have found the "third way" (ie not getting "signed", and not obscurity!).
There is a stat about how during a period when 800 million CD's were sold - 2.5 billion downloads occured. Thus if you premise were true - CD sales should have dropped to zero. They did not. ( the figures above are not true they are as I remember but I am sure they are off a bit - but in essence this is true).
Yes, I remember seeing this stat and thinking the same. If downloading is killing the music business, how come the CD sales aren't dropping more steeply. I think there's a bit of a difference between the CDs sold and the downloads though. A CD is 10 to 15 songs and I wonder if a "download" isn't (often) one song?
But I don't think that is the point. Just because there are millions of people who haven't been burgled it doesn't mean that the few (in percentage terms) burglaries that do occur are OK.
You ignore that copyright/monopoly is a recent phenomonem yet before people made money and made art and music and books.
Back when Mozart was a lad and "sheet music" was the method of moving music about I don't think it was such a problem. If a musician wanted some music they purchased the music written on paper and there wasn't an easy way to copy it. There were few musicians and the sheet music was, as far as I understand, pretty cheap. People paid to see the musician play his own music more, as there weren't recording formats for the public to purchase. It has only been relatively recent that copying music has been something the public can do. This has been since the advent of tape, and probably only really a problem since cassette tape, and there was a move to slap a tax on blank tapes back in the70's and 80's.
So, yes, it is a recent phenomenon, but only because the ability to copy content in any meaningful way is also a recent phenomenon.
The idea of Theft of Ideas is seductive but it is wrong once you realize that IP is not the same as other property. Read the US constitution - it treats property and the arts differently. because they are different.
OK, first off, why would how the US constitution treats anything be anything other than "of interest" historically? It may well treat property and the arts differently because whome ever wrote it "thought they were different".
Interestingly, it is only in the last few days that I have changed camps from a "I should be able to copy my CDs into any format I want" person to a "why should I be able..." person. That's not to say I don't enjoy the ability to do so, but I'm not sure I still think it is my "right" to do so just because it is now easy!
As I see it, the problem is that the record companies charge too much for their product. To physically produce a CD (and I don't mean the one of cost of recording the content, getting the artwork etc, just minting a copy) costs pence, and yet they charge £15 or more. If they charged £5 for a CD people would buy th
You see if you sell widgets and I sell widgets I deprive you of some or all your income depending how succesful I am at widget selling.
You see, copyright is a monopoly. Pure and simple. I am NOT stealing I am breaking your monopoly.
Sure, if we both get our widgets from some third party, or make them according to a "build-a-widget" pack we got from the Sunday colour supplement, but if the widget in question is something I invented, or in the case of music, a song I wrote, then I should get something in recognition of my original thought. To build one of my widgets without my permission, or to copy one of my songs, would indeed be breaking my monopoly, but the whole point is that if it is my original work then damn right I should have a monopoly on selling it!
If no one could safeguard their inventions (and I shall lump song writing, etc, in with "inventions") then you couldn't make a decent living out of doing it 'cos some bozo could always make it cheaper than you can, so fewer people would try.
If I truly steal a thing from you, you no longer have that thing.
We all seem to just reflexively accept that copying is theft without really considering it very carefully.
How about if I deprive you of something that is rightfully yours? Is that theft? I'd say it is.
So if I deprive you of the income you would have got had I purchased my own copy of your CD instead of ripping a copy from a friend, that is surely theft.
What you are saying is that if the person never actually had the item being stolen, it isn't theft. So if I intercept your post before you get it, I can have it, right? Perhaps a weak analogy, but I hope you get the idea.
Other posters have complained about the big corporations buying the rights from the original artists and then creaming the public and thereby ripping both us and the artists off. Oh yes. They sure do! But it is the artist's choice to sell and whilst they hold the rights to the content they can bargain for a higher price or better deal.
There is the whole deal of supply and demand. If the artist needs to pay some bills they'll sell to a large Corp. for a smaller amount of money than it might actually be worth, but if the content is popular we'll queue up to buy it. I hate paying over £10 (10 UKP) for CDs or DVDs so I wait until they come down to below that price before I purchase. That's the price-point for me. If everyone waited until the price came down to under a tenner you can bet they'd start out in the shops at a tenner!
I'm not siding with the big Corps, but historically, they have been the ones who "find" the new artists. I guess they just need to embrace the new technology rather than trying to act like the content-luddites and try to force the world to spin back to the 60's.
They could also stop shafting us on recordings they have already made a profit on. Beatles albums for £20! Daylight Robbery!
Why is the 10 hours a band spends recording a song possibly worth millions (only with government force) but the 10 hours a hamburger flipper spends worth $80?
Hmmm. Perhaps the difference is that the band are recording there own songs (or their own arrangements of other people's songs) whereas the burger flipper is flipping someone else's burgers! Let the burger flipper come up with a way to make the burgers tastier and he may well be able to sell that idea to someone and live off the earnings. You will find that there are a lot of "burger flippers" in the music industry too. They sing the backing vocals, they are the covers bands that sing down in your local pub or club. They don't make the big bucks because they too are not recording or performing their own music, and if they are, there aren't enough people who like it to make it pay!
To continue your analagy, it's also saying you want a burger flipper to get paid the same as a brain surgeon! Who'd have the stress of a brain surgeon if you could have the same lifestyle cooking burgers!
Slashdot Mirror
True, but, certainly in the UK, that would be "breaking and entering" or some such, and is somewhat frowned upon. Now if I ask you for your door keys and you hand them over, you haven't got a leg to stand on!
IFAIK, the way RFID works is that a transmitter asks for your RFID number, and your helpful embedded RFID chips just gives it out. So the burglar is asking for your "house keys", and you are just handing them over! I'm not sure this would be "breaking and entering" anymore, as they don't have to force entry. Still going to be a bunch of stealing going on I suppose.
IMHO, it's just plain stupid, and quite possibly "really stupid".
Count me out!
Oh come on MODS, how is this not funny!
You see, the grand parent said that RFID chips had been tested in animals for years, right, and that animals live for 10 years. Then, and this is the funny part, the parent replied, right, saying ... five, with the implant. See.
Well, he was implying that the usual lifespan of 10 years would be shortened by the implanting of the RFID chip to five years.
Yes? ... oh, never mind.
Wow, Thta snouds gerat!
If you live in the UK and you want to "pass" you should consider renewing your passport sooner rather than later ...
There is a new website setup by the No2ID people aimed at getting folks to register their displeasure by renewing their passports in May.
The aim is to encourage supporters to renew their passports in May, ahead of the linkage between the passport and the National Identity Register. Last month the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said that "anyone who feels strongly enough about the linkage [...] will be free to surrender their existing passport and apply for a new passport before the designation order takes effect." It is possible to renew your passport at any time without having to pretend the dog ate it.
OK, at the moment someone might have to fake/forge a number of documents (in the UK at least) such as a recent utilities bill in their name, driving licence, passport, etc but even having done so, the people looking at these document know there's a chance that they may be forged and are (hopefully!) keeping an eye out for anything suspicous.
Fast forward to "2084" (as 1984 has already passed!) and you rock up with a forged ID Card. The bozo looking at this card is going to "know" that it is genuine (because our wonderful leaders have told us it will be!) and not bother looking any further. Indeed, if someone has a card with their face/iris/fingerprint on it and your name (and id number), he is, to all intents and purposes, you! You will now have to prove that you are you ... and how will you do that?
It sucks ....
Just say no and Renew your passport now!
I have a British passport which expires in 2008 but I don't live there. When I want it renewed will I be required to get an ID card?
I don't even know the proceedure for getting a passport for "expats" now, but I do know that if you apply for a renewal (in the UK) before your old one expires they will credit it with up to (I think) 9 months extra so you won't lose too much if you apply now.
If you look at the whole preceeding paragraph ...
Much like the UK ID Card coming soon. The Gov said it would be optional to have one, then tried to rail-road anyone getting a passport (new or renewal) into having one. Luckily, the Lords put a stop to that, and initially at least it will be optional for you to take the ID Card when you get your next passport. Of course, you will still be charged for it, and all the information will still be logged into the central database whether you take the card or not.
I renewed my passport this year so I won't be forced into having an ID Card for 10 years! I'd strongly suggest that you consider doing the same!
OK. Maybe it wasn't too clear. I was trying to inform the UK peeps that as of sometime next year (I think) you will be coerced into purchasing an ID Card when you renew your passport. If you renew it before then (like I have) you will not.
A driver's license allows one to drive, a passport allows you to travel abroad, a credit card allows you by purchase items (and pay for them later), and a medicare card (presumably) allows you access to some form of medical assistance.
Now an ID Card ... hmmmmm. What might I be able to do with that that I can't already do with the items I already own. Nothing springs to mind. I can open a bank account. I can travel on a bus or a plane and I can still drive my car. I can get health care.
What, pray, does an ID Card do for me that isn't already possible?
As someone else responded above, the owning/carrying of the card isn't the worst of it. We're mostly techy people here right. Hands up all those who think this central repository of all our information is going to be ...
a) Ready on time
b) Completed to budget
c) Secure
It's such a huge boondoggle for the various companies scrabbling for the contracts that a lot of people have a vested interest in seeing it through. I have heard (but am unable to find a link!) that the Lab Gov had promised the contracts to various companies before it all got through parliament.
It is going to cost billions, like the Millenium Dome, and be about as useful!
We had ID cards during the Second World War and after the war the Goverment of the day decided we didn't need them anymore. Tell me why we need them now.
Much like the UK ID Card coming soon. The Gov said it would be optional to have one, then tried to rail-road anyone getting a passport (new or renewal) into having one. Luckily, the Lords put a stop to that, and initially at least it will be optional for you to take the ID Card when you get your next passport. Of course, you will still be charged for it, and all the information will still be logged into the central database whether you take the card or not.
I renewed my passport this year so I won't be forced into having an ID Card for 10 years! I'd strongly suggest that you consider doing the same!
Of course, first it's optional to have one, or too many people would object! The next step is obviously to make it a legal requirement to own such a card, but it would never be mandatory to carry it. Give it a couple of years however, and a new law WILL make it an offence not to carry your ID Card.
It's common sense (for the Gov!). There's no point having ID Cards unless everyone has them, and there's no point having them unless everyone carries the damn things. Of course, what's the point in carrying them if no one ever asks to see them ...
Papers please
It won't help the public with their normal everyday lives, but it will help the Gov. control you.
Just Say NO!
Hmmmm. OK. I didn't "taunt" her. In the same way I may try and inform the driver of another car if their door isn't closed properly, or they have a tail light out, or if they have a flat (or underinflated) tyre, or haven't got their seatbelt on, I was trying to show that there was a safety problem with her vehicle (in this case, the driver was impaired). My guess is that she's already had a "bad day" and was just venting her spleen at the first unfortunate who crossed her path.
As it happens, I was honestly trying to warn her about the possible consequences to her (eg a fine, and soon to be points on her licence) as to the safety aspect. I would have to agree with another poster to this thread that I don't see talking on the phone to be any more distracting than changing a tape, tuning the radio, lighting a cigerette, or heaven forbid, having your children in the car!
Was it my business. Obviously, opinion is divided on this one! Given that I was trying to help her not get caught, I'd say my intentions were those of the "good samaritan", but I can quite see how she might have felt "taunted", so perhaps I'd be better off ignoring anyone who might be heading for trouble and concentrate on Number One!
Or maybe she was just trying to deflect the fact that she knew she was in the wrong because he (or in this case "she") who shouts loudest, is invariably in the right!
I'd like to see a maximum height restriction for the Right Hand (AKA "Fast") lane of motorways and dual carriage ways in the UK. This would keep vans, MPVs, and most 4X4s out of the way and allow people in sensible vehicles to press on. It's not just the intimidation of size (which actually I don't have a problem with, it's that they obscure the view for the people presumably driving the fastest!
You think that's bad!
I had to drive home at 60mph, in an electric car, wearing sandles, put the car on the charger when I got home, harvest some hemp and weave my own supper before going to bed in a hammock with my hairy wife ... er ... on the central reservation ... er ... red wine or something ...
Whilst driving to Guildford from Kingston yesterday morning, on the A3, I was being tailed by a large people carrier with a "lady" holding a mobile (cell) phone to her ear. I indicated that I had seen her vehicular faux pax in the usual way (pretended to hold a phone to my ear, etc).
She pulled up along side me and wound down her window to harange me whilst we were both driving along in heavy traffic at 30 or 40 MPH. Apparently, it's none of my "f***ing" business what the numb-nuts in the vehicle behind is doing and I should, apparently, mind my own "f***ing" business (now you know why I put "lady" in quotes!).
It was at this point that I noticed the small and frightened looking, girl in the front passenger seat.
With people like this on the road I think I'll stick to cars thanks very much!
Interestingly, there was just the psycho-mom and the small girl in the 7 seater people carrier too ... so, two stereotypes for the price of one! Best value on the A3 today! Get 'em while they're hot, they're lovely!
Being a driver of a small car with only two seats, I'd like to see this concept flipped on it's head, and offer a lane to people who have fewer than a certain number of empty seats! This might keep the massive vehicles, like people-carriers, with just Mum + baby Tarquin or Jocaster, out of the way!
OK, go on then, if you don't live at home, where do you live?
Tell that to the Kangaroos! They have one of the most efficient bidepal locomotion stratagies because as they land they stretch two massive tendons and store all the kinetic energy, which they then use to bounce themselves aloft once more.
From the linked page ...
Running is a strange means of locomotion that involves bouncing up and down, as well as moving forward. This bouncing is aided by the elastic nature of the Achilles tendon at the back of the foot, which acts like an elastic band, stretching when we put our foot down, and then pulling back to its relaxed length to propel us upward. This conserves a considerable amount of energy during running, raising the energy efficiency from 25 to 40 percent or more. And training increases the elasticity of the tendon, whereas aging decreases elasticity, making running less efficient. Kangaroos are the ultimate masters of this pogo stick effect, which enables them to increase from 5 to 20 kilometers per hour without using any extra energy -- just more bounce.
I, for one, welcome our robotic bouncing kangaroo overlords.
Interestingly, in some of France and certainly in Rome it is considered "bad form" to leave your hand brake on when parked on the street, because it is normal for someone to shunt the cars out of the way to make room for themselves to get in or out.
Why would the manufacturers be spending all that money putting bumpers on your cars if you weren't supposed to use them!
I also saw a small car pull up in a narrow street in London and 4 big chaps get out. They then lifted the car up and put it in a very narrow space. Very funny!
Immigration
Once an ID system is in place, you have a way to uniquely identify everyone in the country. Those from abroad would be given a temporary ID when they pass through Customs/Immigration. Basically, it makes it damn easy to identify those who have entered the country illegaly as they will have no ID and no biometric data held. You don't need to CARRY your ID card, because a check can be made against some aspect of your biometrics quickly and easily.
Uniquely identify. Hmmm. It is possible to fake fingerprints. This means I could have your prints. They check me out and I'm OK because you have a valid ID card. It is already illegal to hire illegal immigrants, yet people still do it. It won't make a blind bit of difference.
Terrorism
OK, I think you realise it won't stop them. It might make it quicker to find out who was involved, but actually they found out who they were pretty damn quickly anyway! That's a lot of money for a day or so less in the investigation!
Benefit Fraud
Wa Wa Ooops. The majority of benefit fraud is miss-representation, that's people (the actual people, with ID cards) saying they have a bad back when it's actually got better.
We have to wake up and smell the coffee. I agree with another poster - the Lords should have made the Gov use the Parliament Act. And the Gov want to abolish the Lords ... Hmmmm.
The only hope we have is that they cock it up so badly it never gets completed. This is also quite likely, but in doing so they will probably have collected a lot of the data and it will end up in the wrong hands!
Here's what I'd do ... start by setting up the infrastructure for life on the Moon. We have a pretty good communications and GPS network on Earth, let's setup something similar for the Moon allowing high bandwidth communications and accurate location for anywhere on the Moon.
Right, now we'll know where we are and we can communicate with Earth. That's a good start, and something we can kick off now.
Next, the Moon Base. I think others have said it's probably best if we can get it underground. Can we not send a bunch of remote vehicles to dig out a bunker? Do we know if there are already any caverns we could tunnel into perhaps? I know there are problems with earth (er, moon?) moving equipement in low G, but the devices could anchor themselves (fire exposive bolts to shoot anchors into the ground?), then dig.
And all this without sending/risking any people yet!
Also in orbit around the Moon should be a Space Station. We should have something similar orbiting Earth. Send stuff up to the Earth Station using whatever technology gets us out of the gravity well the best. Have a different vehicle that chugs back and forth between Earth and the Moon, and another vehicle designed specifically for getting from the Moon Station to the Moon and back (and this _may_ be similar to the Earth vehicle).
Could we build a Moon Space Elevator, or use other technologies in the lower G to make getting up and down from/to the Moon cheaper/quicker/safer?
Once we have the Moon Base (Alpha?) built, we should send unmanned vehicles with supplies before we send any people, so when they arrive there is plenty of ozygen, water, and food.
We should probably at least double up on the Moon and Earth Stations, and the craft that ply the various routes (Earth to/from Earth Orbit, Earth orbit to/from Moon Orbit, Moon Orbit to/from Moon)
So a lot of this is directly (re-)usable for a Mars Mission. The Earth Station and Earth to Orbit systems would be the same. The communications and location system and the Mars Station could be identical technology, and when we get to Mars, it's all been in use on or around the Moon for 5 or 10 years!
Thoughts?
Usually/Often true yes, but not always true. In the Falklands conflict the Argentinian fighter pilots in their supersonic jets couldn't use their afterburners during the dogfights with the British subsonic Harriers because they were right on the edge of their range, and using the afterburners meant they didn't have enough fuel to get back to Argentina!
Well yes and no [lol] because I don't disagree with everything you say!
today WITH copyright most musicians make little or no money because they WAIT fot the organization to take over their copyright and exploit them, and they HOPE and HOPE that the record company will invest as much in him as they did for U2. But it never happens.
I have a number of friends in bands, for example The Lies and Bullet Galloway, who are taking this very approach. I can see them hoping to get "signed" and I realise that having talent just isn't enough, but it is their choice to take that route. Other bands are more canny and are able to use different routes to make a living, like Marillion [*shudder*] who, granted, had mainstream "fame" first, but now have their fanbase pay in advance for the next album and use the money to make the recording and press the CDs. So there are bands out there who have found the "third way" (ie not getting "signed", and not obscurity!).
There is a stat about how during a period when 800 million CD's were sold - 2.5 billion downloads occured. Thus if you premise were true - CD sales should have dropped to zero. They did not. ( the figures above are not true they are as I remember but I am sure they are off a bit - but in essence this is true).
Yes, I remember seeing this stat and thinking the same. If downloading is killing the music business, how come the CD sales aren't dropping more steeply. I think there's a bit of a difference between the CDs sold and the downloads though. A CD is 10 to 15 songs and I wonder if a "download" isn't (often) one song?
But I don't think that is the point. Just because there are millions of people who haven't been burgled it doesn't mean that the few (in percentage terms) burglaries that do occur are OK.
You ignore that copyright/monopoly is a recent phenomonem yet before people made money and made art and music and books.
Back when Mozart was a lad and "sheet music" was the method of moving music about I don't think it was such a problem. If a musician wanted some music they purchased the music written on paper and there wasn't an easy way to copy it. There were few musicians and the sheet music was, as far as I understand, pretty cheap. People paid to see the musician play his own music more, as there weren't recording formats for the public to purchase. It has only been relatively recent that copying music has been something the public can do. This has been since the advent of tape, and probably only really a problem since cassette tape, and there was a move to slap a tax on blank tapes back in the70's and 80's.
So, yes, it is a recent phenomenon, but only because the ability to copy content in any meaningful way is also a recent phenomenon.
The idea of Theft of Ideas is seductive but it is wrong once you realize that IP is not the same as other property. Read the US constitution - it treats property and the arts differently. because they are different.
OK, first off, why would how the US constitution treats anything be anything other than "of interest" historically? It may well treat property and the arts differently because whome ever wrote it "thought they were different". ..." person. That's not to say I don't enjoy the ability to do so, but I'm not sure I still think it is my "right" to do so just because it is now easy!
Interestingly, it is only in the last few days that I have changed camps from a "I should be able to copy my CDs into any format I want" person to a "why should I be able
As I see it, the problem is that the record companies charge too much for their product. To physically produce a CD (and I don't mean the one of cost of recording the content, getting the artwork etc, just minting a copy) costs pence, and yet they charge £15 or more. If they charged £5 for a CD people would buy th
You see, copyright is a monopoly. Pure and simple. I am NOT stealing I am breaking your monopoly.
Sure, if we both get our widgets from some third party, or make them according to a "build-a-widget" pack we got from the Sunday colour supplement, but if the widget in question is something I invented, or in the case of music, a song I wrote, then I should get something in recognition of my original thought. To build one of my widgets without my permission, or to copy one of my songs, would indeed be breaking my monopoly, but the whole point is that if it is my original work then damn right I should have a monopoly on selling it!
If no one could safeguard their inventions (and I shall lump song writing, etc, in with "inventions") then you couldn't make a decent living out of doing it 'cos some bozo could always make it cheaper than you can, so fewer people would try.
We all seem to just reflexively accept that copying is theft without really considering it very carefully.
How about if I deprive you of something that is rightfully yours? Is that theft? I'd say it is.
So if I deprive you of the income you would have got had I purchased my own copy of your CD instead of ripping a copy from a friend, that is surely theft.
What you are saying is that if the person never actually had the item being stolen, it isn't theft. So if I intercept your post before you get it, I can have it, right? Perhaps a weak analogy, but I hope you get the idea.
Other posters have complained about the big corporations buying the rights from the original artists and then creaming the public and thereby ripping both us and the artists off. Oh yes. They sure do! But it is the artist's choice to sell and whilst they hold the rights to the content they can bargain for a higher price or better deal.
There is the whole deal of supply and demand. If the artist needs to pay some bills they'll sell to a large Corp. for a smaller amount of money than it might actually be worth, but if the content is popular we'll queue up to buy it. I hate paying over £10 (10 UKP) for CDs or DVDs so I wait until they come down to below that price before I purchase. That's the price-point for me. If everyone waited until the price came down to under a tenner you can bet they'd start out in the shops at a tenner!
I'm not siding with the big Corps, but historically, they have been the ones who "find" the new artists. I guess they just need to embrace the new technology rather than trying to act like the content-luddites and try to force the world to spin back to the 60's.
They could also stop shafting us on recordings they have already made a profit on. Beatles albums for £20! Daylight Robbery!
Hmmm. Perhaps the difference is that the band are recording there own songs (or their own arrangements of other people's songs) whereas the burger flipper is flipping someone else's burgers! Let the burger flipper come up with a way to make the burgers tastier and he may well be able to sell that idea to someone and live off the earnings. You will find that there are a lot of "burger flippers" in the music industry too. They sing the backing vocals, they are the covers bands that sing down in your local pub or club. They don't make the big bucks because they too are not recording or performing their own music, and if they are, there aren't enough people who like it to make it pay!
To continue your analagy, it's also saying you want a burger flipper to get paid the same as a brain surgeon! Who'd have the stress of a brain surgeon if you could have the same lifestyle cooking burgers!