As far as cameras looking at police officers. We need a lot more of that. Police routinely 'beat people up' and conduct illegal searches. They need to be put on a short leash.
Increasingly the cameras are there. See any of the reality TV cop shows for examples. What's missing is the public right to see them. And there shouldn't be any general right for the public to see them. Because many of the people who come into contact of the police, and are on these videos, are not guilty of anything.
What would work, as far as rights are concerned, is for those people that police prosecute, or that make official complaints against the police, to get a copy of the footage in which they appear. Though it would be an expensive and bureaucratic process to implement.
as long as camera's are also installed inside police department in every office and interrogation room and are completely accessible by public.
'I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,'
An ill thought out knee jerk reaction. You might not think that police deserve privacy in offices and interview rooms, but members of the public, be they witnesses or suspects that have not yet been convicted, certainly do.
You could say the same about regular old breeding. We breed traits into animals which would normally have taken hundreds of thousands of years to evolve.
Well indeed you could. Take breeds like the King Charles Spaniel. It's selections make it a very unhealthy breed in several ways. Or fighting dogs such as the Pit Bull Terrier
They are fair example of how even the old technology could be create bad traits. By accidental side-effect or by design.
The potential for that with GMO is so much greater.
I think you're laboring under a minor misapprehension. horizontal gene transfer happens without any human directed genetic modification anyway. Not often it happens. Genes pass from one organism to another, from bacteria to plants or from insects to fungus.
No, I was aware of that.
the difference is that one is intentional
The scale and speed and extremity of changes with GM is on a completely different level. If it were not, they wouldn't bother with GM, they'd carry on with the old selection methods. As I said those changes can be for good AND bad.
Will all these stupid new TLDs even be used? Right now, how often do you go to a legitimate website (non-spam, non-scam, non-malware) that doesn't use.com,.net,.org,.gov or.edu ? I'll bet it's pretty rare.
Clearly you're American. I go to.uk sites all the time. The french go to.fr etc...
And I can certainly see the benefit of porn being swept away to it's own.xxx domain.
But yes,.amazon seems pointless for both the company and the geographical area. I suspect the company doesn't even want to use it as their primary domain, but just to stop anyone else using it.
I suggest that companies should never be allowed to own their own TLD. TLDs are for broad categorisations and a single company is never that.
like for example... ? I have yet to see any vaguely credible evidence of any dangers from GMO crops.
GMOs can and do feature genes from any other organism, plants, mammals, insects, bacteria, fish, anything with DNA. Organisms can be produced with desirable traits from any organism. They can even produce traits that are not in any organism. For example a recent bacteria has been produced that directly produces diesel.
Note that there's a limited amount of design here. There's a lot of trial and error, because the processes are not well understood.
Now, if they can produce GMOs with desirable traits, they can also produce them with undesirable traits, either deliberately or by mistake.
The key player in this market is Monsanto, who have proved themselves over the years to be the epitome of the evil corporation. So why would anyone trust them with this kind of power?
The reason GMOs are allowed in the USA is because American politics is easily bought by those with enough money. And Monstanto has enough money. Third world countries even more so.
Europe is not without corruption, but it is far less easily bought than America and the third world.
Who created, owns, runs, manages, works in and consumes the products of those factories?
Mostly Americans. Of course a minority of those products are exported. But that's somewhat more than compensated by other products that are imported.
Likewise the ownership which is not American is more than compensated by Americans that own factories in other countries.
Many stats need a vale factor to enable meaningful comparisons between countries. And in terms of the results of human behaviour, which includes output from factories, population is the most appropriate divisor to establish a rate.
The nomadic herder not only consumes less himself than your gas-guzzler, he also lives in a country with fewer factories. These two things are not unrelated.
Now maybe none of that makes sense to you. But that's your problem, not a problem with the standard way of presenting such statistics.
What are you talking about? Thoughtful consumers have been taking on the environment, animal rights and other green issues as a responsibilities since at least the 1960s.
You don't HAVE be be clueless about what you consume. Not doing anything is because you don't care, not because you can't.
The US still has laws that ban certain types of pornography that they call obscene material, and there is even a supreme court case which provides a litmus test for upholding that ban. Nobody has enforced that in recent times though. 40 years ago you couldn't have a man and a woman lying in the same bed on terrestrial television, they were required to have at least one foot on the ground, and words that could even in some way even remotely hint at sex, like the word pregnant of all things, were outlawed. Elves Presly's wild dances were seen as sexually suggestive. In the early 1900's, most places had ordinances that forbade women from wearing anything smaller than a t-shirt (bikini's were right out.)
It echos a similar change in the American right wing moving from the bible to the constitution as their religious document of choice.
We've already had a few politicians repeatedly get re-elected after admitting to having sex with a minor (see Bawny Fwank.)
You do realise that neither misspelling his name, nor posting under a pseudonym here, can save you from being sued for that lie.
There's also a sizable skinhead problem in the UK.
No there isn't. (I live in the UK.) You need to get better sources of information. Just because you can find a website that says something, doesn't make it true you know. Not even when that website points to outliers as if they are typical.
Most UK hotspots are run by the big networks like O2, Talk-Talk and BT. In some places they are free, where businesses want to use it to attract customers - McDonalds, Pubs, Motorway service stations. And in some places they are charged at extortionate prices where customers are trapped - hotels, airports.
Occasionally there's a area wide free wifi system, done as promotion for a company, in association with some public body. Such as on the London Underground, or during the Olympics.
Filtering software is no significant expense to the networks, and would be outweighed by savings in bandwidth anyway.
Free hot-spots done as charity or out of public spirit, which could potentially be harmed by such expenses. Very rare. I've only ever come across one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as cameras looking at police officers. We need a lot more of that. Police routinely 'beat people up' and conduct illegal searches. They need to be put on a short leash.
Increasingly the cameras are there. See any of the reality TV cop shows for examples. What's missing is the public right to see them. And there shouldn't be any general right for the public to see them. Because many of the people who come into contact of the police, and are on these videos, are not guilty of anything.
What would work, as far as rights are concerned, is for those people that police prosecute, or that make official complaints against the police, to get a copy of the footage in which they appear. Though it would be an expensive and bureaucratic process to implement.
as long as camera's are also installed inside police department in every office and interrogation room and are completely accessible by public.
'I think the privacy issue has really been taken off the table,'
An ill thought out knee jerk reaction. You might not think that police deserve privacy in offices and interview rooms, but members of the public, be they witnesses or suspects that have not yet been convicted, certainly do.
Anti-mine armaments? What's wrong with that?
Now do stop making things up.
If you were better with technology, you could.
Since when is Paul Thurrot's click bait that even he doesn't believe "news" or "stuff that matters"?
You missed your chance. They're prizes, not merit badges.
"Would you buy a used car from this man?" dates back to 1960. Pretty stupid then in 1968 to trust him to end the war.
You could say the same about regular old breeding. We breed traits into animals which would normally have taken hundreds of thousands of years to evolve.
Well indeed you could. Take breeds like the King Charles Spaniel. It's selections make it a very unhealthy breed in several ways. Or fighting dogs such as the Pit Bull Terrier
They are fair example of how even the old technology could be create bad traits. By accidental side-effect or by design.
The potential for that with GMO is so much greater.
I think you're laboring under a minor misapprehension.
horizontal gene transfer happens without any human directed genetic modification anyway.
Not often it happens.
Genes pass from one organism to another, from bacteria to plants or from insects to fungus.
No, I was aware of that.
the difference is that one is intentional
The scale and speed and extremity of changes with GM is on a completely different level. If it were not, they wouldn't bother with GM, they'd carry on with the old selection methods. As I said those changes can be for good AND bad.
Will all these stupid new TLDs even be used? Right now, how often do you go to a legitimate website (non-spam, non-scam, non-malware) that doesn't use .com, .net, .org, .gov or .edu ? I'll bet it's pretty rare.
Clearly you're American. I go to .uk sites all the time. The french go to .fr etc...
And I can certainly see the benefit of porn being swept away to it's own .xxx domain.
But yes, .amazon seems pointless for both the company and the geographical area. I suspect the company doesn't even want to use it as their primary domain, but just to stop anyone else using it.
I suggest that companies should never be allowed to own their own TLD. TLDs are for broad categorisations and a single company is never that.
Wait till you hear where mom's apple pie is made.
it's what's technically called "time passing"
Oh, right. Thanks. I get confused with my non-linear attitude to time.
like for example... ?
I have yet to see any vaguely credible evidence of any dangers from GMO crops.
GMOs can and do feature genes from any other organism, plants, mammals, insects, bacteria, fish, anything with DNA. Organisms can be produced with desirable traits from any organism. They can even produce traits that are not in any organism. For example a recent bacteria has been produced that directly produces diesel.
Note that there's a limited amount of design here. There's a lot of trial and error, because the processes are not well understood.
Now, if they can produce GMOs with desirable traits, they can also produce them with undesirable traits, either deliberately or by mistake.
The key player in this market is Monsanto, who have proved themselves over the years to be the epitome of the evil corporation. So why would anyone trust them with this kind of power?
The reason GMOs are allowed in the USA is because American politics is easily bought by those with enough money. And Monstanto has enough money. Third world countries even more so.
Europe is not without corruption, but it is far less easily bought than America and the third world.
Are your two points connected? Because of course you can't do those things until the patent on the GM expires. Monsanto will sue you.
Lets name names. Monstanto is the big evil corporation behind the push to GM.
The current President is in fact the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him because he was not George W. Bush.
That's a pretty good reason.
Have you thought of just not electing militaristic presidents in the first place?
Who created, owns, runs, manages, works in and consumes the products of those factories?
Mostly Americans. Of course a minority of those products are exported. But that's somewhat more than compensated by other products that are imported.
Likewise the ownership which is not American is more than compensated by Americans that own factories in other countries.
Many stats need a vale factor to enable meaningful comparisons between countries. And in terms of the results of human behaviour, which includes output from factories, population is the most appropriate divisor to establish a rate.
The nomadic herder not only consumes less himself than your gas-guzzler, he also lives in a country with fewer factories. These two things are not unrelated.
Now maybe none of that makes sense to you. But that's your problem, not a problem with the standard way of presenting such statistics.
No he didn't.
And if he had that ought to be a good reason you don't like him. So there's your cognitive dissonance showing through right there.
What are you talking about? Thoughtful consumers have been taking on the environment, animal rights and other green issues as a responsibilities since at least the 1960s.
You don't HAVE be be clueless about what you consume. Not doing anything is because you don't care, not because you can't.
The US still has laws that ban certain types of pornography that they call obscene material, and there is even a supreme court case which provides a litmus test for upholding that ban. Nobody has enforced that in recent times though. 40 years ago you couldn't have a man and a woman lying in the same bed on terrestrial television, they were required to have at least one foot on the ground, and words that could even in some way even remotely hint at sex, like the word pregnant of all things, were outlawed. Elves Presly's wild dances were seen as sexually suggestive. In the early 1900's, most places had ordinances that forbade women from wearing anything smaller than a t-shirt (bikini's were right out.)
It echos a similar change in the American right wing moving from the bible to the constitution as their religious document of choice.
We've already had a few politicians repeatedly get re-elected after admitting to having sex with a minor (see Bawny Fwank.)
You do realise that neither misspelling his name, nor posting under a pseudonym here, can save you from being sued for that lie.
There's also a sizable skinhead problem in the UK.
No there isn't. (I live in the UK.) You need to get better sources of information. Just because you can find a website that says something, doesn't make it true you know. Not even when that website points to outliers as if they are typical.
Are you thick or just pretending?
Those products were tested on people instead of animals.
People who can give consent, as opposed to animals that can't. No need to be an asshole about being wrong.
Most UK hotspots are run by the big networks like O2, Talk-Talk and BT. In some places they are free, where businesses want to use it to attract customers - McDonalds, Pubs, Motorway service stations. And in some places they are charged at extortionate prices where customers are trapped - hotels, airports.
Occasionally there's a area wide free wifi system, done as promotion for a company, in association with some public body. Such as on the London Underground, or during the Olympics.
Filtering software is no significant expense to the networks, and would be outweighed by savings in bandwidth anyway.
Free hot-spots done as charity or out of public spirit, which could potentially be harmed by such expenses. Very rare. I've only ever come across one of them.
Torrents haven't been stopped on UK public hot-spots so far. Though most porn sites have already been censored on them.