I'm not the original poster, but I can answer your questions:
Citation? Where did the "converted BBM Bruni self-loading pistol" come from?
If it was in the hands of Duggan, the police would have said so day 1. All they have said is that it was found at the scene. Which fits in nicely with the rumour that it was in a sock in the boot of his car. I don't know where the gun was, but if it was actually on his person, the police would be describing him as armed, and they aren't.
[beating of a teenage girl by the police.] Citation?
That's why they're burning down government and police buildings, instead of looting local businesses and burning their neighbours cars?
They're looting shops because they want free stuff. The Tories have taught them that greed is good. Consumer capitalism has advertised goodies to them all their lives, whilst racism has denied them the opportunity of getting the good jobs that pay. ANd their youth clubs have been shut down, so they have nowhere to go but the street. They have no respect for the police as the police have never shown any respect for them. In their minds why wouldn't they get free stuff, whilst the police are incapable of stopping them?
The question you've got to ask is what kind of society breeds these kind of criminals. And the answer is one where we now have a record gap between the richest and the poorest. The Gini coefficient. That's the statistic that shows the most correlation with criminality.
Good for you in wanting solid information. You're quick to dismiss the GPs opinion. However you throw it all away in the last couple of paragraphs, giving your own opinion.
So here's my angle: The police wouldn't say if Duggan had fired a shot. We now know from the initial investigation he didn't. If he had have done so the police would have said so day 1.
The police said there was a bullet lodged in a police radio, leaving the public to assume it came from Duggan's gun. 5 days later we find from the initial inquiry that it came from a police weapon and Duggan didn't fire a shot.
Likewise, the police say that there was a non-police issue gun found on the scene. If it had been in the hand of Duggan, they would have said so day 1.
We've seen these kind of distortions to make it look like the police were blameless before in the cases of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezez etc.
More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time.
Did you vote for voting reform during the referendum, or did you vote to retain first past the post?
Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them.
It's tempting to think that, because Labour does have an advantage in that they need less votes per MP. But it's not because of any change in the boundaries. It's because Labour votes are more concentrated in urban areas, whilst Tory votes are spread more evenly through city and country.
It's not about student loans. It's about youth clubs and other social services being closed down. This whilst unemployment has been rising for about 4 years. Incredibly stupid politics.
However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.
And who taught kids that "Greed is good"? Who taught them that there is no such thing as society? That they should look after themselves and their families first?
I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.
Actually, since the 1980s they've been taught that Greed Is Good.
Advertising has shown them the things they should aspire to, whilst racial discrimination has denied them the well paying jobs that are needed to afford them.
Crime happens more in countries where the Gini coefficient is highest. The Gini coefficient being the gap between the richest and the poorest. Thats direct proof that your assertion of socialism being at fault being the very opposite than the truth. That and the fact that your example of Britain is very far from being socialist. The gap between the rich and poor there is bigger than it's ever been.
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it.
Well you'd probably believe that if you read the Daily Mail. In the real world however, under Labour the prison population rose to it's highest ever level, a higher level than anywhere else in Europe. This was against a background of crime decreasing ever year under the British Crime survey. Labour were certainly not soft on crime.
This problem has happened under the Tory coalition. In Tottenham where it started, the Tories have caused more than half the youth clubs to be closed. A week before the riots started, there were predictions that putting these kids onto the streets with nothing to do would lead to riots. Right wingers are so short sighted - they don't see beyond the end of their noses. Penny-wise, pound foolish.
People are angry, but what they are angry about is that the universe hasn't handed them everything they want without them having to do anything to earn it.
Absolutely. But since the 1980s, the system has been teaching them that greed is good, whilst at the same time racial discrimination has meant that they couldn't get the advertised consumer goodies through getting a good job. No wonder when the opportunity to get branded consumer stuff for free they take it. It's quicker and less risky than the other option of being a link in the drug dealing chain.
Because I'm sure all of the baboons putting people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy would have been playing table tennis and sipping lemonade while telling some boring old hippy their troubles - if the opportunity had been there.
But they were. On Sky News they've had former youth leaders saying that they actually recognised some of the youths doing the looting.
You have to be pretty stupid not to realise the value of youth clubs taking youths off the streets in the evenings. Giving them interesting things to do rather than get bored on street corners drinking cider.
The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do.
These people aren't protesting. There's no banners, no chants, no spokesmen telling the media what their problem is.
These are just looters. The logical conclusion of having a consumer society, preaching greed is good, but discriminating against a group such that they don't see honest work as a way to get the products that are advertised to them.
By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.
Citation?
Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black. And the middle class is overwhelmingly white. Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.
Ealing got hit last night - but only because the very poor area of Acton is only a short walk away, and doesn't have shops which are as good as Ealing.
The rioting started in the borough of Hackney. Hackney closed most of their youth clubs due to central government cuts. Putting lots of kids that used to have things to do out onto the streets. And then you've got the unemployment that the government is responsible for.
I doubt many of these rioting criminals have any idea of politics. But for sure the governments political mistakes are contributing to their behaviour.
I haven't heard the police, nor anyone else for that matter say that he "pulled a gun". Just that there was a non-police gun found at the scene, and that Mark Duggan tended to carry a gun in his sock.
Further, it's taken 5 days for the police to admit that the bullet lodged in a police radio was not from the victim, but a ricochet from one of their own guns.
The rumour is that Duggan was executed when police already had him restrained on the ground. A ricochet hitting a police radio is consistent with that. (Close range).
I'm not necessarily convinced yet. But it sure smells of a cover up. Just like with Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles De Menezez.
On the consumer end, keeping things locked down on as many different devices as possible protects this revenue. Why else would they revert jailbroken devices with every single OS update?
1) It's easier to do it that way. 2) Jailbreaks increase support costs. If someone reports a bug or returns a phone it might be because of the jailbreak. It's always easier to have fewer configurations out there. 3) Jailbreaks rely on security holes which have to be fixed to prevent malware. 4) A primary use of the jail-breaking process is to pirate software. Why would Apple do more work to support that?
Bottom line there's every reason for a new OS version to overwrite the system files that are on the phone, rather than to tip-toe around system files that might have been changed by a jailbreak.
Why can't other applications interface with the iTunes Store if the ultimate purpose is to sell music or movies?
You're the one that's claiming the ultimate purpose is to sell music or movies. So that question is one of incompatibility between two of your own opinions.
For me, it's obvious. As I said, iTunes and the App Store are there to make it easy and pleasurable to get media from the internet onto Apple hardware. By far their primary source of income being selling that hardware. So why would Apple want to let other companies benefit from that?
If ease of use were the only criterion, they could keep the vertically integrated Apple way of doing things for novice users, while allowing alternatives for advanced users. If something were to go wrong with the alternatives, it would not be solely the fault of those users who decided to step outside of the Apple way. For instance ship the iPhone with a default locked down OS, but give the users the option to jailbreak them through some advanced settings options with giant messages of "WARNING! Dragons ahead!" (I kid you not, that's what Cyanogen tells me in its Performance settings).
Again, I didn't say "ease of use were the only criterion". I spoke about good design. And good design is for all users, not just novices. A good design shouldn't ever need to have "WARNING!" disclaimers. Apple are of the opinion that most people want well designed products that that are reliable and easy to use. They don't want gadgets that you can lift the hood up and tinker with. And their sales prove them right.
(Talking of lifting up the hood and tinkering, one might notice that few people want to do it with cars any more, and cars are less open to doing it. It's maturing of technology.)
On the business end, the lockdown means there will never be a competing App Store that would undercut them.
That's true. But it also makes it less confusing for users, when there is a one stop shop for all apps. Android has competing stores, and yet far fewer Android users buy apps.
If Apple thought it was a better design/easier to use/would sell more hardware to have access to multiple stores, then they'd no doubt do it, because that would maximise their profits. But it's not good for any of those things.
This stuff might make more sense if you read "The Paradox of Choice". And the design stuff if you read "The Invisible Computer".
I realize if you are an Apple consumer this is not a pleasant pill to swallow
Not at all. I appreciate perfectly well, and rather better than you the reasons behind Apple's designs. I buy Apple products with full knowledge. And whilst they aren't perfect, they have the best designed hardware, software and integrated systems in the consumer marketplace.
Here's the thing - EVERYBODY has choice. They can choose what device ecosystem to buy into. And from that choice, Apple is the most popular choice of smartphone manufacturer, tablet manufacturer, and if the trends continue, in a few years they'll be the most popular choice for laptops and desktops too.
I don't know. If there''re real competition amongst suppliers, the theory is that the price will go down for consumers. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the original poster, but I can answer your questions:
Citation? Where did the "converted BBM Bruni self-loading pistol" come from?
If it was in the hands of Duggan, the police would have said so day 1. All they have said is that it was found at the scene. Which fits in nicely with the rumour that it was in a sock in the boot of his car. I don't know where the gun was, but if it was actually on his person, the police would be describing him as armed, and they aren't.
[beating of a teenage girl by the police.] Citation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bijq1wo2tE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjT68msxvX4&feature=related&skipcontrinter=1
That's why they're burning down government and police buildings, instead of looting local businesses and burning their neighbours cars?
They're looting shops because they want free stuff. The Tories have taught them that greed is good. Consumer capitalism has advertised goodies to them all their lives, whilst racism has denied them the opportunity of getting the good jobs that pay. ANd their youth clubs have been shut down, so they have nowhere to go but the street. They have no respect for the police as the police have never shown any respect for them. In their minds why wouldn't they get free stuff, whilst the police are incapable of stopping them?
The question you've got to ask is what kind of society breeds these kind of criminals. And the answer is one where we now have a record gap between the richest and the poorest. The Gini coefficient. That's the statistic that shows the most correlation with criminality.
Good for you in wanting solid information. You're quick to dismiss the GPs opinion. However you throw it all away in the last couple of paragraphs, giving your own opinion.
So here's my angle: The police wouldn't say if Duggan had fired a shot. We now know from the initial investigation he didn't. If he had have done so the police would have said so day 1.
The police said there was a bullet lodged in a police radio, leaving the public to assume it came from Duggan's gun. 5 days later we find from the initial inquiry that it came from a police weapon and Duggan didn't fire a shot.
Likewise, the police say that there was a non-police issue gun found on the scene. If it had been in the hand of Duggan, they would have said so day 1.
We've seen these kind of distortions to make it look like the police were blameless before in the cases of Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezez etc.
There's no evidence that Mark Duggan pointed a gun.
More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time.
Did you vote for voting reform during the referendum, or did you vote to retain first past the post?
Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them.
It's tempting to think that, because Labour does have an advantage in that they need less votes per MP. But it's not because of any change in the boundaries. It's because Labour votes are more concentrated in urban areas, whilst Tory votes are spread more evenly through city and country.
Here we have a supposedly democratic country where, at the first sign of trouble, government officials are suggesting exactly the same thing.
Are they? Which ones? Do you have a citation?
It's not about student loans. It's about youth clubs and other social services being closed down. This whilst unemployment has been rising for about 4 years. Incredibly stupid politics.
However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.
And who taught kids that "Greed is good"? Who taught them that there is no such thing as society? That they should look after themselves and their families first?
I expect this is consequence of falsely teaching people for years that someone else was responsible for their well-being.
Actually, since the 1980s they've been taught that Greed Is Good.
Advertising has shown them the things they should aspire to, whilst racial discrimination has denied them the well paying jobs that are needed to afford them.
Crime happens more in countries where the Gini coefficient is highest. The Gini coefficient being the gap between the richest and the poorest. Thats direct proof that your assertion of socialism being at fault being the very opposite than the truth. That and the fact that your example of Britain is very far from being socialist. The gap between the rich and poor there is bigger than it's ever been.
Sounds more like criminals to me.
And what creates criminals? Here's a hint: criminality has different levels in different countries.
It won't do any good for your political beliefs for sure. Your beliefs rely on being ignorant to the causes of things.
What should they do when your home gets robbed? catch the burglars or get the the underlying cause of what makes people rob other people's home?
Pretty obviously the answer is both.
Um, the left have spent decades pushing policies which created a feral underclass who believe that they can go out and smash stuff up and burn buildings down and won't be punished for it.
Well you'd probably believe that if you read the Daily Mail. In the real world however, under Labour the prison population rose to it's highest ever level, a higher level than anywhere else in Europe. This was against a background of crime decreasing ever year under the British Crime survey. Labour were certainly not soft on crime.
This problem has happened under the Tory coalition. In Tottenham where it started, the Tories have caused more than half the youth clubs to be closed. A week before the riots started, there were predictions that putting these kids onto the streets with nothing to do would lead to riots. Right wingers are so short sighted - they don't see beyond the end of their noses. Penny-wise, pound foolish.
The job of the police isn't to determine why, it's to stop it from happening.
It is when one of the many reasons for the riots is police behaviour. Specifically their cover-ups whenever they kill a member of the public.
You're the only one claiming that he pulled a gun. The police aren't. And for sure if he did, they'd be saying it.
These reatards don't know what real discrimination (South Africa pre 1994, USA in the 50s) is. I bet they can't spell it.
Retards is spelled with only one a.
Are you black? Maybe you're not subject to the same situation.
People are angry, but what they are angry about is that the universe hasn't handed them everything they want without them having to do anything to earn it.
Absolutely. But since the 1980s, the system has been teaching them that greed is good, whilst at the same time racial discrimination has meant that they couldn't get the advertised consumer goodies through getting a good job. No wonder when the opportunity to get branded consumer stuff for free they take it. It's quicker and less risky than the other option of being a link in the drug dealing chain.
Because I'm sure all of the baboons putting people's lives and livelihoods in jeopardy would have been playing table tennis and sipping lemonade while telling some boring old hippy their troubles - if the opportunity had been there.
But they were. On Sky News they've had former youth leaders saying that they actually recognised some of the youths doing the looting.
You have to be pretty stupid not to realise the value of youth clubs taking youths off the streets in the evenings. Giving them interesting things to do rather than get bored on street corners drinking cider.
The whole thing is growing tiresome, so we should at least agree that violent protesting is a vicious, stupid thing to do.
These people aren't protesting. There's no banners, no chants, no spokesmen telling the media what their problem is.
These are just looters. The logical conclusion of having a consumer society, preaching greed is good, but discriminating against a group such that they don't see honest work as a way to get the products that are advertised to them.
By the "underclass," I presume you mean 13-17 year old kids from middle class families, since that's apparently the makeup of most of the looters.
Citation?
Looking at the footage reveals that most of the looters are black. And the middle class is overwhelmingly white. Furthermore the rioting all started in the poor areas of London - Tottenham, Toxteth, Lewisham etc.
Ealing got hit last night - but only because the very poor area of Acton is only a short walk away, and doesn't have shops which are as good as Ealing.
The rioting started in the borough of Hackney. Hackney closed most of their youth clubs due to central government cuts. Putting lots of kids that used to have things to do out onto the streets. And then you've got the unemployment that the government is responsible for.
I doubt many of these rioting criminals have any idea of politics. But for sure the governments political mistakes are contributing to their behaviour.
I haven't heard the police, nor anyone else for that matter say that he "pulled a gun". Just that there was a non-police gun found at the scene, and that Mark Duggan tended to carry a gun in his sock.
Further, it's taken 5 days for the police to admit that the bullet lodged in a police radio was not from the victim, but a ricochet from one of their own guns.
The rumour is that Duggan was executed when police already had him restrained on the ground. A ricochet hitting a police radio is consistent with that. (Close range).
I'm not necessarily convinced yet. But it sure smells of a cover up. Just like with Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles De Menezez.
On the consumer end, keeping things locked down on as many different devices as possible protects this revenue. Why else would they revert jailbroken devices with every single OS update?
1) It's easier to do it that way.
2) Jailbreaks increase support costs. If someone reports a bug or returns a phone it might be because of the jailbreak. It's always easier to have fewer configurations out there.
3) Jailbreaks rely on security holes which have to be fixed to prevent malware.
4) A primary use of the jail-breaking process is to pirate software. Why would Apple do more work to support that?
Bottom line there's every reason for a new OS version to overwrite the system files that are on the phone, rather than to tip-toe around system files that might have been changed by a jailbreak.
Why can't other applications interface with the iTunes Store if the ultimate purpose is to sell music or movies?
You're the one that's claiming the ultimate purpose is to sell music or movies. So that question is one of incompatibility between two of your own opinions.
For me, it's obvious. As I said, iTunes and the App Store are there to make it easy and pleasurable to get media from the internet onto Apple hardware. By far their primary source of income being selling that hardware. So why would Apple want to let other companies benefit from that?
If ease of use were the only criterion, they could keep the vertically integrated Apple way of doing things for novice users, while allowing alternatives for advanced users. If something were to go wrong with the alternatives, it would not be solely the fault of those users who decided to step outside of the Apple way. For instance ship the iPhone with a default locked down OS, but give the users the option to jailbreak them through some advanced settings options with giant messages of "WARNING! Dragons ahead!" (I kid you not, that's what Cyanogen tells me in its Performance settings).
Again, I didn't say "ease of use were the only criterion". I spoke about good design. And good design is for all users, not just novices. A good design shouldn't ever need to have "WARNING!" disclaimers. Apple are of the opinion that most people want well designed products that that are reliable and easy to use. They don't want gadgets that you can lift the hood up and tinker with. And their sales prove them right.
(Talking of lifting up the hood and tinkering, one might notice that few people want to do it with cars any more, and cars are less open to doing it. It's maturing of technology.)
On the business end, the lockdown means there will never be a competing App Store that would undercut them.
That's true. But it also makes it less confusing for users, when there is a one stop shop for all apps. Android has competing stores, and yet far fewer Android users buy apps.
If Apple thought it was a better design/easier to use/would sell more hardware to have access to multiple stores, then they'd no doubt do it, because that would maximise their profits. But it's not good for any of those things.
This stuff might make more sense if you read "The Paradox of Choice". And the design stuff if you read "The Invisible Computer".
I realize if you are an Apple consumer this is not a pleasant pill to swallow
Not at all. I appreciate perfectly well, and rather better than you the reasons behind Apple's designs. I buy Apple products with full knowledge. And whilst they aren't perfect, they have the best designed hardware, software and integrated systems in the consumer marketplace.
Here's the thing - EVERYBODY has choice. They can choose what device ecosystem to buy into. And from that choice, Apple is the most popular choice of smartphone manufacturer, tablet manufacturer, and if the trends continue, in a few years they'll be the most popular choice for laptops and desktops too.
I don't know. If there''re real competition amongst suppliers, the theory is that the price will go down for consumers. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that.
As you say it's the nature of private companies to seek to increase the amount of product they sell. It's best for the state to run utilities.
It's hardly the most complex of engineering problems.