No you moron he's not 'equating' anything. His point is that if you let people decide for themselves what the law is then you will get a lot of different laws, e.g. some people will go an kill everyone in abortion clinics because it is against there own personal 'law', others will decide to kill sections of society they don't especially like. Certainly some people may decide to shoot rapists or murderers but the resulting slaughter does not in any way justify such a stupid idea.
"Hey, there goes a guy with an airgun" "Yeah, let's shoot him"
They will most probably ask you what you are doing with the air gun and make sure you aren't planning on trying to convince anyone it's a real one in an attempt to rob them or you're not on the way to the zoo to shoot at the animals.
People committing crimes with replica guns or airguns and trying to pass them off as real ones should expect to get shot.
That's right apparently different organisations will be able to use different levels of authentication dependant on there need, i.e. some people can just look at the photo on the card, others can look at the signature etc etc.
Personally I don't think any non government parties are going to use the card for anything, those which need authentication schemes, e.g. banks already have their own well established ones and aren't likely to change all that to rely on some government scheme outside of their control. Plus the fact that since it's not compulsory initially they can't rely on all their customers having a card and so if they were to embrace the ID cards they'd need to run two separate systems to cater for those on there normal authentication and those using ID cards.
I don't know if it still does it but a while ago when you went to the BBC news page it did ask whether you were located in the UK or not so they have obviously been doing some research into who is using there web site and from where.
Also a small point but the BBC is funded by TV Licence fees not the British Taxpayers directly.
Europeans are no more crazy than Americans and considerably less crazy than people like yourself.
There was no proof of any WMD before the invasion except a lot of statements from the UK and US government assuring us, in the face of evidence from the actual weapons inspectors, that there really were, honest, lot's of WMD in Iraq. It's now obvious that there never were any such weapons.
The Al-Quaida connection was argued, there were photos of Al-Quaida training camps inside Iraq which was said to prove Saddams links with Al-Quaida and international terrorism.
Saddam has never instigated any terrorist attacks against the UK or the US.
A great idea but I am concerned that you appear to be suggesting he offers jobs, which could be performed perfectly well by Americans, to foreigners. OK they may work for a bit less but you'd save money on the retraining costs with the Americans.
There's a good chance if you did a deal with some local primary schools etc you wouldn't even need to pay them, their teachers may even be persuaded to pay you to take them off their hands for a few months.
Initially I thought of some kind of complicated bluetooth system where everyone has bluetooth headsets and the listening posts notice when new headsets come within range and start to stream the commentary to the headset but then I thought the problem with that is the same as with any wireless solution relying on giving the visitors headsets. If there a lot of visitors then they will need a lot of headsets which would be very expensive so I think you're just better rigging up an mp3 player or cd player to a big button attached to one set of headphones.
I think it really boils down the fact they your leadership will not go down in history for it's efforts to improve road safety ( which also doesn't go down too well with most car drivers ) whereas wars of one kind or another are almost sure to preserve your name in lights through history.
Secondly it's pretty obvious that Terrorism has simply replaced Communism as the reason for military spending and an excuse for leveraging the governments power into whatever areas they like. Conveniently Terrorism is a not something you can ever beat in a war so it will be usefull for a good long time.
Sorry yes I did miss that, it has only been on the news in the UK in the last half hour.
I am glad he has now made an apology but it's a shame it has taken so long for it to happen.
Obviously the actions of GW Bush have a knock on effect on the Iraqui reaction to American and British troops and I wish he would realise that his actions can directly influence the level of antagonism and violence experienced by our troops. Whilst watching his speech on American sponsored Iraqui TV I couldn't help but think it looked like he was smirking almost all the way through it, I'm sure he wasn't but it's that kind of thing which winds people up the wrong way.
So far as most people in the world can see Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaida were responsible for 9/11 and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it.
That being the case although the terrorists can be blamed for their act of terrorism they can't be blamed for most of the actions of the US Government afterwards since in the main they have very little to do with countering terrorism.
"We apologized for the torture, because apologizing was the right thing to do"
I watched George Bush's statement to the Arab world and it didn't include any apologies so far as I heard, he said it was abhorrent, un-american etc but not "Sorry".
To be fair to the coast guard although there computer system was inoperative they did have a perfectly workable backup solution in place which they were able to use to exactly the same end result as they would have achieved using the computers.
OK so it was a worm which took down the systems this time which is something you can protect against but at the end of the day you shouldn't rely on any computer system without a manual backup process ( if it is possible to implement one ) which can take over for safety critical work. Computers are complex things and can fail for a huge variety of reasons some of which should be preventable ( in this case ) and some which aren't reasonably preventable.
I don't think the computers affected by the virus at the Coastguard were a safety critical system. It looks like the machines were just used for mapping and recording incidents which could be done with charts and paper manually.
If this kind of problem is putting the public at risk then shouldn't they have an alternative backup system in place which can function independently of any technology likely to suffer from outages ?
I thought that during Blunketts public consultation most of the people who responded were against the idea.
I too don't see how on earth this is going to help with anything, the various methods of ID people have at the moment; birth certificates, passports, driving licences seem perfectly adequate to me. If they are worried about the security of these methods then they should spend the money on sorting out the existing systems.
Whatever ID card they do come up with won't be 100% unforgeable but as soon as someone does assume your identity with an ID card it will be a nightmare for you to prove it wasn't really you doing all those bad things.
In the end this is a fairly huge IT project and the British Government hasn't yet ever managed to run one of those successfully. This is going to be a massive waste of money and in the end, being as it is apparently not compulsory anyway, no one will bother anyway.
Coming back from Ireland once customs accepted a receipt from a Burger King in Birmingham as proof as I was a British citizen ( I had misplaced my passport ).
Do you think we will ever reach the stage where worms are actually good for the host computer.
After all if they are using that machines resources it would make sense for the worm to make any modifications to the set up to enable it to run more efficiently and defend it's self against other worms taking over it's host and kicking it out.
Slashdot Mirror
No you moron he's not 'equating' anything. His point is that if you let people decide for themselves what the law is then you will get a lot of different laws, e.g. some people will go an kill everyone in abortion clinics because it is against there own personal 'law', others will decide to kill sections of society they don't especially like. Certainly some people may decide to shoot rapists or murderers but the resulting slaughter does not in any way justify such a stupid idea.
Yes but they don't just say to themselves
"Hey, there goes a guy with an airgun"
"Yeah, let's shoot him"
They will most probably ask you what you are doing with the air gun and make sure you aren't planning on trying to convince anyone it's a real one in an attempt to rob them or you're not on the way to the zoo to shoot at the animals.
People committing crimes with replica guns or airguns and trying to pass them off as real ones should expect to get shot.
That's right apparently different organisations will be able to use different levels of authentication dependant on there need, i.e. some people can just look at the photo on the card, others can look at the signature etc etc.
Personally I don't think any non government parties are going to use the card for anything, those which need authentication schemes, e.g. banks already have their own well established ones and aren't likely to change all that to rely on some government scheme outside of their control. Plus the fact that since it's not compulsory initially they can't rely on all their customers having a card and so if they were to embrace the ID cards they'd need to run two separate systems to cater for those on there normal authentication and those using ID cards.
I don't know if it still does it but a while ago when you went to the BBC news page it did ask whether you were located in the UK or not so they have obviously been doing some research into who is using there web site and from where.
Also a small point but the BBC is funded by TV Licence fees not the British Taxpayers directly.
Europeans are no more crazy than Americans and considerably less crazy than people like yourself.
There was no proof of any WMD before the invasion except a lot of statements from the UK and US government assuring us, in the face of evidence from the actual weapons inspectors, that there really were, honest, lot's of WMD in Iraq. It's now obvious that there never were any such weapons.
The Al-Quaida connection was argued, there were photos of Al-Quaida training camps inside Iraq which was said to prove Saddams links with Al-Quaida and international terrorism.
Saddam has never instigated any terrorist attacks against the UK or the US.
I thought all you needed to do at stonehenge was hug the bits of rock and you'd recieve messages direct from the godhead.
A great idea but I am concerned that you appear to be suggesting he offers jobs, which could be performed perfectly well by Americans, to foreigners. OK they may work for a bit less but you'd save money on the retraining costs with the Americans.
There's a good chance if you did a deal with some local primary schools etc you wouldn't even need to pay them, their teachers may even be persuaded to pay you to take them off their hands for a few months.
Initially I thought of some kind of complicated bluetooth system where everyone has bluetooth headsets and the listening posts notice when new headsets come within range and start to stream the commentary to the headset but then I thought the problem with that is the same as with any wireless solution relying on giving the visitors headsets. If there a lot of visitors then they will need a lot of headsets which would be very expensive so I think you're just better rigging up an mp3 player or cd player to a big button attached to one set of headphones.
I think it really boils down the fact they your leadership will not go down in history for it's efforts to improve road safety ( which also doesn't go down too well with most car drivers ) whereas wars of one kind or another are almost sure to preserve your name in lights through history.
Secondly it's pretty obvious that Terrorism has simply replaced Communism as the reason for military spending and an excuse for leveraging the governments power into whatever areas they like. Conveniently Terrorism is a not something you can ever beat in a war so it will be usefull for a good long time.
Xianist ?
Sorry yes I did miss that, it has only been on the news in the UK in the last half hour.
I am glad he has now made an apology but it's a shame it has taken so long for it to happen.
Obviously the actions of GW Bush have a knock on effect on the Iraqui reaction to American and British troops and I wish he would realise that his actions can directly influence the level of antagonism and violence experienced by our troops. Whilst watching his speech on American sponsored Iraqui TV I couldn't help but think it looked like he was smirking almost all the way through it, I'm sure he wasn't but it's that kind of thing which winds people up the wrong way.
If we let him get away with it he'll be plotting a plan before much longer.
So far as most people in the world can see Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaida were responsible for 9/11 and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it.
That being the case although the terrorists can be blamed for their act of terrorism they can't be blamed for most of the actions of the US Government afterwards since in the main they have very little to do with countering terrorism.
"We apologized for the torture, because apologizing was the right thing to do"
I watched George Bush's statement to the Arab world and it didn't include any apologies so far as I heard, he said it was abhorrent, un-american etc but not "Sorry".
"plug in a laptop"
Which is exactly what happened at the Coastguard.
They weren't, the infection was brought in by a laptop.
To be fair to the coast guard although there computer system was inoperative they did have a perfectly workable backup solution in place which they were able to use to exactly the same end result as they would have achieved using the computers.
OK so it was a worm which took down the systems this time which is something you can protect against but at the end of the day you shouldn't rely on any computer system without a manual backup process ( if it is possible to implement one ) which can take over for safety critical work. Computers are complex things and can fail for a huge variety of reasons some of which should be preventable ( in this case ) and some which aren't reasonably preventable.
"How much" should read "How many".
I don't think the computers affected by the virus at the Coastguard were a safety critical system. It looks like the machines were just used for mapping and recording incidents which could be done with charts and paper manually.
If this kind of problem is putting the public at risk then shouldn't they have an alternative backup system in place which can function independently of any technology likely to suffer from outages ?
Well if as the article says the sea floor is a mile down then divers aren't going to get anywhere near it anyway.
I thought that during Blunketts public consultation most of the people who responded were against the idea.
I too don't see how on earth this is going to help with anything, the various methods of ID people have at the moment; birth certificates, passports, driving licences seem perfectly adequate to me. If they are worried about the security of these methods then they should spend the money on sorting out the existing systems.
Whatever ID card they do come up with won't be 100% unforgeable but as soon as someone does assume your identity with an ID card it will be a nightmare for you to prove it wasn't really you doing all those bad things.
In the end this is a fairly huge IT project and the British Government hasn't yet ever managed to run one of those successfully. This is going to be a massive waste of money and in the end, being as it is apparently not compulsory anyway, no one will bother anyway.
Coming back from Ireland once customs accepted a receipt from a Burger King in Birmingham as proof as I was a British citizen ( I had misplaced my passport ).
Do you think we will ever reach the stage where worms are actually good for the host computer.
After all if they are using that machines resources it would make sense for the worm to make any modifications to the set up to enable it to run more efficiently and defend it's self against other worms taking over it's host and kicking it out.
I think the 'building' part comes later though.