The majority of fundamentalists are accepting of science until they feel it contradicts their scripture and/or beliefs. Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs. Depends on the amount of proof required. Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.
Yeah, multiple batteries were a hassle - even with a charger that accepts multiple batteries. Much nicer to get a full day of work, and then plug my machine in when I head down for dinner. I don't miss the days of carrying 2-3 batteries for my PowerBook G3 Series. Lovely machines at the time, and being able to hot swap batteries was useful, but I'd rather have the integrated battery with a decent life.
Artificial selection is the process of intentionally breeding for specific traits - such as dog owners breeding for longer ears. This is natural selection at work - even if the agent doing the selecting is of human origin.
Personally I don't have a problem with proper debate, so I don't mind if people disagree with me.
Debates are great for YECs but pretty pointless for their opponents. The subject is complex - encompassing theology and all the sciences, so uninformed audiences are more likely to decide a "winner" based on ignorance and personal beliefs. It happens on both sides of the argument. People claim to "believe" in evolution, yet can offer few good reasons for their stance, and some YEC advocates respond in by grabbing sound-bites from ICR and AIG - without taking the time to validate the claims they're making. Debate isn't entirely pointless: It can be interesting and thought-provoking, but this assumes two parties willing to set aside show-boating and hand-waving in a genuine attempt to explore a topic.
I imagine that a scientist, when approached to debate creationism/ID, would empathise with theologians being assailed by Dan Brown fans eager to discuss the possibility that Christianity was created out of whole-cloth by Constantine in an effort to control his empire. Uninformed criticism of both science and Christianity is annoying.
It's a modern, and legally unenforceable, version of the king's shilling in the bottom of a tankard. I've worked for some pretty large multinationals, and have never been officially told to use such disclaimers (and not seen legal professionals using them). The main source of them appear to be naifs who've stumbled upon these fancy looking disclaimers and then sent a mail to the rest of the team suggesting that they use them. Probably the same people who'll also wondering why it's a bad idea to store customer credit cards in the post-it note database that adorns their monitor?
I believe that disclaimers could be used to reinforce an existing licence (effectively reminding someone of the terms they agreed to), but as you said - it can't create a licence in retrospect. Yup, it's pissing one someone's boots and telling them that it's rain that they're obligated to pay for.
Heh, they'd be screwed in Ireland. In Cork (second largest city in Ireland) our bus stops are just red poles with a bus logo on the top. Bus stops in the city centre sometimes have timetables attached, or some indicator as to which busses stop there, but anything a couple of minutes outside the centre is a mystery. It's pretty much a case of standing at bus stops and then seeing what'll turn up.
Our bus system here works on the assumption that everyone using it knows the city and the routes. Punctual noobs are discouraged.
Yeah, it is odd. I can understand the parents being sued if they didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent their children from causing an accident, or children being detained if there's reason to believe that they pose a risk to others. The James Bulger case is an example of the latter. Bulger was murdered by a couple of 10-year-old kids, and in that case their actions were so abnormal that some kind of detention was pretty easy to justify.
I'd hope it'd come down to the precautions taken. If the parents raise their kids to run across busy roads and play with matches then the parents should be held liable, but if they did what could be reasonably expected then this should surely be one of those unfortunate accidents that that will likely haunt these children in later-life, and there seems to be no good reason to add additional harm to them by dragging them through the legal system.
You as a mentally competent adult had chosen to use a snow-board, so there probably should be some liability if an accident occurs as a result of your inability to control the snow-board. Would be the same if I decided to go driving without wearing my glasses. I'd hope though that a judge would take in to account reasonable precautions taken. There should be a difference between an amateur who just hops on a snow-board and heads to widow peak, and a similarly unskilled person who takes some intstruction or sticks to small hills until ready for something bigger.
Probably a similar experience to Heathrow. Went through their last week, and I can only assume that the security people had been informed that we were all paedophiles. Was a relief to arrive at some smaller airports in the U.S. where the staff were strict but decent.
Bastards in Heathrow were also kind enough to lie about finding a place to smoke, and directed me through security knowing full well that I'd not be able to get back out.
Funny how that compares to the old Performas. I recall some of those coming with no discs, so when powered up the user had to dig out a box of floppies so they could make recovery disks. In the case of Acer they must be making a decent enough saving by removing that disc from the box.
Yeah. It's not like back in the days of the PowerBook G3 Series. With mine I had four batteries that I lugged around if I was spending a day out doing something. Four batteries gave me maybe six or seven hours of serious use - Final Cut Pro & WarCraft III (the important things). Air travel was fun, with the first priority being a smoke, and the second was to find a plug socket to get enough juice for the flight.
So far with my MacBook Pro I'm pretty chuffed that when the battery indicator shows not much left on it, I still have an hour or two. I'd think for most people that the ability to swap batteries is as useful as having a nearby cobbler.
Good: A company can help steer a project in the direction that suits them. Epson could participate in Gutenprint to ensure that the features of their printers are well supported. They can help push through features that suit their business, and can help determine the order in which bugs are fixed. Saves them money if they can have volunteers building quality code for them. It can be a handy way to find talent.
Bad: Risk of giving work away to competitors. This depends though on the business model. CentOS and RHL are theoretically in a similar line of business, but Red Hat provide proprietary extras and support that don't come with a free download of CentOS. Politics and stability. Open source projects die without talent to maintain them. Companies have to be careful that they don't alienate key people in the project. This is why companies who rely heavily on open source projects should take their investment seriously - nothing is free. At least with commercial or in-house products a company can be in a contract that ensures that x product will be developed on specific timelines. It's tricky releasing a set-top box reliant on a project if at any time a key developer may decided to take a break to go sailing around the world. This is why it's not a bad idea to buy a project or at least have the significant developers on the payroll. Assurance that the code won't get you sued, and that the code is not going to break something. Patents and copyright become an issue unless managed closely. We know that proprietary stuff is also subject to this, but with open source it's easier to notice that x piece of code violates a copyright or a patent. There's a need for the maintainers to be very effective in vetting the code they allow in to the project. Proprietary stuff can leak out. Developers employed by the company may unwittingly allow proprietary code to leak out in to the project.
It's an idiotic move in any circumstance. It's as silly as being sacked from Microsoft for installing Linux at home, or vice versa. (Even MS has a Linux lab, whether that's for interoperability or just to see what the competition is doing, though I hear they have a policy of MS-only on the main corporate desktops, even for programmers, which seems a bit daft). It's like being told that your children MUST go to the school that you teach at.
It's more like an MS employee being sacked for being a prominent developer of GNU/Linux or Mozilla, or being on the board of a school while actively participating in the marketing of a competing school. There are technical and PR conflicts of interest.
Applying "not invented here" to corporate installs generally makes sense. It's easier to maintain a relatively homogeneous IT ecosystem - from both technical and licencing perspectives. From a PR perspective as well, it can be a bit embarrassing to have it disclosed that employees aren't "eating their own dog food". You might remember when MS were using PowerMac G5s during their Xbox development and demos. Quite a few fan boys perceived a sense of irony that really wasn't there.
And, assuming the FOSS company holds significant copyrights, the ability to relicence the code or portions of it. Kind of useful to be able to take previously GPL'ed code, add some proprietary improvements, and ship it in a product without the need to share those changes.
I don't disable all adverts, but I do disable flash content. It got silly to be playing WoW and wondering why my fps had dropped, only to find that a web page I'd left open in the background had some flash junk that was eating in to my CPU time. Some Flash content is pretty well behaved, i.e. isn't in some crazy loop, but the more frenetic ones eat up those cycles.
Hey does actually have a point, but it's kind of difficult to take him seriously given the track record of the Pope and his church.
Also, I suspect that the Pope's solution to the problem would be less than idea. His claim that abstinence and martial fidelity are the solution to the AIDs problem has a grain of truth, but it's somewhat undermined by the church's insane refusal to consider condoms as part of a greater solution.
The Pope is concerned that people would lose their connection to reality, yet this is the guy in a funny hat, a robe, a divine hotline, and the the leadership of a religion that believes some sparsely evidenced Jewish guy 2000 years ago got himself nailed to a cross in order to save us from the eternal damnation caused by a conversation between a woman and a talking serpent.
Besides, it's not clear that the Pope is criticising anything beyond virtual worlds. There are problems with some people perhaps spending far too much in online social networks, and perhaps 20 years ago the same would be said about TV. The examples you provided are thankfully rare, just as stories about alcoholics who drink themselves in to ruin are rare. This doesn't mean that we should pretend that everything is fine, but policy shouldn't be driven by outliers.
Heh, it is fun. I'd take the view that a lack of divine punishment would suggest that God wasn't to bothered by Lot's two days of drunken incest. The angels didn't admonish Lot for trying to send his daughters out to be raped in their place, so the whole situation is a bit dubious. Kind of odd, since God was normally very abrupt and straight to the point when he didn't approve of something.
Kind of makes one wonder what the others were like if Lot and his family were the only people deemed righteous enough to save. One hell of a party town.
Theft and murder are crimes, but only in the same sense that snooker and skiing are both sports. A better analogy would be a thief lecturing us on the importance of respecting the property of others. The message is sensible and demonstrably valid, yet a little bit disingenuous. A logically sound argument can be invalid.
In cases of opinion, which really is what Benny was sharing, it's perfectly fine to base judgement on the person delivering the message.
Benny is lecturing us on the nature of reality, and he repeatedly demonstrates that reality is, from Benny's perspective, something that happens to other people. I haven't seen the full speech, so it's quite possible that Benny provided sound and valid arguments. That however seems pretty unlikely and Benny's comments should be filed in a category somewhere in between "video games lead to school shootings" and "vaccines cause more harm than they solve".
Benny was hardly a minor player in the church whole John Paul II was running the show.
Both are guilty of ignoring or actively covering up the problems. It just happens that Benny happened to be at the helm when the Ryan Commission provided some pretty damning accounts - closely followed by similar revelations from other countries.
Benny had no choice but to address this problem by blaming secularism and anyone who was not him.
Any powerful being (or force) can restrict the free will of those under their control. This doesn't mean that there is no freewill, but it is certainly diminished as the power increases. We see this in parent-child relationships, the balance between governments and their citizens, and in this - a bunch of apes trying to contend with the most powerful being in all existence. May as well tell a five-year-old kid that they have the freedom to leave home.
I have the freedom to reject God, on pain of pretty terrible eternal consequences. It's little different to asking a guy trapped in a burning house to toss down his wallet if he wants to be rescued. He could refuse, but it's not as if he's got much a choice in the matter. It's even worse if it was me who built that house and set it alight on the date promised in my previous warnings to the occupant.
Unfortunately my warnings took the form of letters written decades ago, in a language that the occupant couldn't understand, and I did nothing to help the occupant differentiate my warnings from those coming from other sources. He never even knew I really existed, since my warnings were ghost-written - in some cases by anonymous authors, so it was quite a surprise for him when I turned up with a can of petrol and a ladder.
This is free will that must be heavily qualified. It's playing a character in a game that pretends to offer open-ended play, yet it quickly kills or bores players who attempt to stray from the linear storyline. Some of those terrible FMV games come to mind. They were obviously limited in the amount of footage they could include, so had to in many cases effectively give the player a choice between a comfy armchair or an arse full of molten lava.
Free will is impossible, not due to omniscience, but more because the Christian worldview posits an all powerful mob-boss who'll fuck us up, directly or indirectly, if we don't buy in to his insurance scheme.
I like this idea. Where I live it's as if cars were only introduced 2 years ago and people are still getting used to them. Reckless parking and the running of red lights are serious problems, and the police of course can't be everywhere. Even if the police only act on a minority of these reports - such as repeated reports related to a specific car registration or an area, drivers may be less likely to play silly buggers on the roads. Reckless parking is a serious issue. It forces pedestrians in to the road when cars are parked up on the pavement, blocks traffic, and causes issues when cars are parked on corners or too close to pedestrian crossings.
Slashdot Mirror
The majority of fundamentalists are accepting of science until they feel it contradicts their scripture and/or beliefs. Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs. Depends on the amount of proof required. Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.
Yeah, multiple batteries were a hassle - even with a charger that accepts multiple batteries. Much nicer to get a full day of work, and then plug my machine in when I head down for dinner. I don't miss the days of carrying 2-3 batteries for my PowerBook G3 Series. Lovely machines at the time, and being able to hot swap batteries was useful, but I'd rather have the integrated battery with a decent life.
Yeah, this isn't artificial selection.
Artificial selection is the process of intentionally breeding for specific traits - such as dog owners breeding for longer ears. This is natural selection at work - even if the agent doing the selecting is of human origin.
Debates are great for YECs but pretty pointless for their opponents. The subject is complex - encompassing theology and all the sciences, so uninformed audiences are more likely to decide a "winner" based on ignorance and personal beliefs. It happens on both sides of the argument. People claim to "believe" in evolution, yet can offer few good reasons for their stance, and some YEC advocates respond in by grabbing sound-bites from ICR and AIG - without taking the time to validate the claims they're making. Debate isn't entirely pointless: It can be interesting and thought-provoking, but this assumes two parties willing to set aside show-boating and hand-waving in a genuine attempt to explore a topic.
I imagine that a scientist, when approached to debate creationism/ID, would empathise with theologians being assailed by Dan Brown fans eager to discuss the possibility that Christianity was created out of whole-cloth by Constantine in an effort to control his empire. Uninformed criticism of both science and Christianity is annoying.
It's a modern, and legally unenforceable, version of the king's shilling in the bottom of a tankard. I've worked for some pretty large multinationals, and have never been officially told to use such disclaimers (and not seen legal professionals using them). The main source of them appear to be naifs who've stumbled upon these fancy looking disclaimers and then sent a mail to the rest of the team suggesting that they use them. Probably the same people who'll also wondering why it's a bad idea to store customer credit cards in the post-it note database that adorns their monitor?
I believe that disclaimers could be used to reinforce an existing licence (effectively reminding someone of the terms they agreed to), but as you said - it can't create a licence in retrospect. Yup, it's pissing one someone's boots and telling them that it's rain that they're obligated to pay for.
Heh, they'd be screwed in Ireland. In Cork (second largest city in Ireland) our bus stops are just red poles with a bus logo on the top. Bus stops in the city centre sometimes have timetables attached, or some indicator as to which busses stop there, but anything a couple of minutes outside the centre is a mystery. It's pretty much a case of standing at bus stops and then seeing what'll turn up.
Our bus system here works on the assumption that everyone using it knows the city and the routes. Punctual noobs are discouraged.
Quit working in a 19th century mill.
Yeah, it is odd. I can understand the parents being sued if they didn't take reasonable precautions to prevent their children from causing an accident, or children being detained if there's reason to believe that they pose a risk to others. The James Bulger case is an example of the latter. Bulger was murdered by a couple of 10-year-old kids, and in that case their actions were so abnormal that some kind of detention was pretty easy to justify.
I'd hope it'd come down to the precautions taken. If the parents raise their kids to run across busy roads and play with matches then the parents should be held liable, but if they did what could be reasonably expected then this should surely be one of those unfortunate accidents that that will likely haunt these children in later-life, and there seems to be no good reason to add additional harm to them by dragging them through the legal system.
You as a mentally competent adult had chosen to use a snow-board, so there probably should be some liability if an accident occurs as a result of your inability to control the snow-board. Would be the same if I decided to go driving without wearing my glasses. I'd hope though that a judge would take in to account reasonable precautions taken. There should be a difference between an amateur who just hops on a snow-board and heads to widow peak, and a similarly unskilled person who takes some intstruction or sticks to small hills until ready for something bigger.
Probably a similar experience to Heathrow. Went through their last week, and I can only assume that the security people had been informed that we were all paedophiles. Was a relief to arrive at some smaller airports in the U.S. where the staff were strict but decent.
Bastards in Heathrow were also kind enough to lie about finding a place to smoke, and directed me through security knowing full well that I'd not be able to get back out.
Funny how that compares to the old Performas. I recall some of those coming with no discs, so when powered up the user had to dig out a box of floppies so they could make recovery disks. In the case of Acer they must be making a decent enough saving by removing that disc from the box.
Yeah. It's not like back in the days of the PowerBook G3 Series. With mine I had four batteries that I lugged around if I was spending a day out doing something. Four batteries gave me maybe six or seven hours of serious use - Final Cut Pro & WarCraft III (the important things). Air travel was fun, with the first priority being a smoke, and the second was to find a plug socket to get enough juice for the flight.
So far with my MacBook Pro I'm pretty chuffed that when the battery indicator shows not much left on it, I still have an hour or two. I'd think for most people that the ability to swap batteries is as useful as having a nearby cobbler.
I'm pretty sure you're right. I'm confusing companies with one another. MySQL AB, with their dual licencing, is probably a better example.
There are quite a few upsides and downsides.
Good:
A company can help steer a project in the direction that suits them. Epson could participate in Gutenprint to ensure that the features of their printers are well supported.
They can help push through features that suit their business, and can help determine the order in which bugs are fixed.
Saves them money if they can have volunteers building quality code for them.
It can be a handy way to find talent.
Bad:
Risk of giving work away to competitors. This depends though on the business model. CentOS and RHL are theoretically in a similar line of business, but Red Hat provide proprietary extras and support that don't come with a free download of CentOS.
Politics and stability. Open source projects die without talent to maintain them. Companies have to be careful that they don't alienate key people in the project. This is why companies who rely heavily on open source projects should take their investment seriously - nothing is free. At least with commercial or in-house products a company can be in a contract that ensures that x product will be developed on specific timelines. It's tricky releasing a set-top box reliant on a project if at any time a key developer may decided to take a break to go sailing around the world. This is why it's not a bad idea to buy a project or at least have the significant developers on the payroll.
Assurance that the code won't get you sued, and that the code is not going to break something. Patents and copyright become an issue unless managed closely. We know that proprietary stuff is also subject to this, but with open source it's easier to notice that x piece of code violates a copyright or a patent. There's a need for the maintainers to be very effective in vetting the code they allow in to the project.
Proprietary stuff can leak out. Developers employed by the company may unwittingly allow proprietary code to leak out in to the project.
It's an idiotic move in any circumstance. It's as silly as being sacked from Microsoft for installing Linux at home, or vice versa. (Even MS has a Linux lab, whether that's for interoperability or just to see what the competition is doing, though I hear they have a policy of MS-only on the main corporate desktops, even for programmers, which seems a bit daft). It's like being told that your children MUST go to the school that you teach at.
It's more like an MS employee being sacked for being a prominent developer of GNU/Linux or Mozilla, or being on the board of a school while actively participating in the marketing of a competing school. There are technical and PR conflicts of interest.
Applying "not invented here" to corporate installs generally makes sense. It's easier to maintain a relatively homogeneous IT ecosystem - from both technical and licencing perspectives. From a PR perspective as well, it can be a bit embarrassing to have it disclosed that employees aren't "eating their own dog food". You might remember when MS were using PowerMac G5s during their Xbox development and demos. Quite a few fan boys perceived a sense of irony that really wasn't there.
For the talent.
And, assuming the FOSS company holds significant copyrights, the ability to relicence the code or portions of it. Kind of useful to be able to take previously GPL'ed code, add some proprietary improvements, and ship it in a product without the need to share those changes.
I don't disable all adverts, but I do disable flash content. It got silly to be playing WoW and wondering why my fps had dropped, only to find that a web page I'd left open in the background had some flash junk that was eating in to my CPU time. Some Flash content is pretty well behaved, i.e. isn't in some crazy loop, but the more frenetic ones eat up those cycles.
Hey does actually have a point, but it's kind of difficult to take him seriously given the track record of the Pope and his church.
Also, I suspect that the Pope's solution to the problem would be less than idea. His claim that abstinence and martial fidelity are the solution to the AIDs problem has a grain of truth, but it's somewhat undermined by the church's insane refusal to consider condoms as part of a greater solution.
The Pope is concerned that people would lose their connection to reality, yet this is the guy in a funny hat, a robe, a divine hotline, and the the leadership of a religion that believes some sparsely evidenced Jewish guy 2000 years ago got himself nailed to a cross in order to save us from the eternal damnation caused by a conversation between a woman and a talking serpent.
Besides, it's not clear that the Pope is criticising anything beyond virtual worlds. There are problems with some people perhaps spending far too much in online social networks, and perhaps 20 years ago the same would be said about TV. The examples you provided are thankfully rare, just as stories about alcoholics who drink themselves in to ruin are rare. This doesn't mean that we should pretend that everything is fine, but policy shouldn't be driven by outliers.
Heh, it is fun. I'd take the view that a lack of divine punishment would suggest that God wasn't to bothered by Lot's two days of drunken incest. The angels didn't admonish Lot for trying to send his daughters out to be raped in their place, so the whole situation is a bit dubious. Kind of odd, since God was normally very abrupt and straight to the point when he didn't approve of something.
Kind of makes one wonder what the others were like if Lot and his family were the only people deemed righteous enough to save. One hell of a party town.
I'm glad that my time at Catholic schools was marked more by hypocrisy, corruption and aggression than clergy wanting to "know me".
Theft and murder are crimes, but only in the same sense that snooker and skiing are both sports. A better analogy would be a thief lecturing us on the importance of respecting the property of others. The message is sensible and demonstrably valid, yet a little bit disingenuous. A logically sound argument can be invalid.
In cases of opinion, which really is what Benny was sharing, it's perfectly fine to base judgement on the person delivering the message.
Benny is lecturing us on the nature of reality, and he repeatedly demonstrates that reality is, from Benny's perspective, something that happens to other people. I haven't seen the full speech, so it's quite possible that Benny provided sound and valid arguments. That however seems pretty unlikely and Benny's comments should be filed in a category somewhere in between "video games lead to school shootings" and "vaccines cause more harm than they solve".
Benny was hardly a minor player in the church whole John Paul II was running the show.
Both are guilty of ignoring or actively covering up the problems. It just happens that Benny happened to be at the helm when the Ryan Commission provided some pretty damning accounts - closely followed by similar revelations from other countries.
Benny had no choice but to address this problem by blaming secularism and anyone who was not him.
God's chosen and righteous man, Lot, having drunken sex with his two daughters not hot enough for you?
Check out Ezekiel 23:20-21.
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
It's not exactly a Mills & Boon romance, but I reckon it's enough to get a priest's wang wobbling.
Any powerful being (or force) can restrict the free will of those under their control. This doesn't mean that there is no freewill, but it is certainly diminished as the power increases. We see this in parent-child relationships, the balance between governments and their citizens, and in this - a bunch of apes trying to contend with the most powerful being in all existence. May as well tell a five-year-old kid that they have the freedom to leave home.
I have the freedom to reject God, on pain of pretty terrible eternal consequences. It's little different to asking a guy trapped in a burning house to toss down his wallet if he wants to be rescued. He could refuse, but it's not as if he's got much a choice in the matter. It's even worse if it was me who built that house and set it alight on the date promised in my previous warnings to the occupant.
Unfortunately my warnings took the form of letters written decades ago, in a language that the occupant couldn't understand, and I did nothing to help the occupant differentiate my warnings from those coming from other sources. He never even knew I really existed, since my warnings were ghost-written - in some cases by anonymous authors, so it was quite a surprise for him when I turned up with a can of petrol and a ladder.
This is free will that must be heavily qualified. It's playing a character in a game that pretends to offer open-ended play, yet it quickly kills or bores players who attempt to stray from the linear storyline. Some of those terrible FMV games come to mind. They were obviously limited in the amount of footage they could include, so had to in many cases effectively give the player a choice between a comfy armchair or an arse full of molten lava.
Free will is impossible, not due to omniscience, but more because the Christian worldview posits an all powerful mob-boss who'll fuck us up, directly or indirectly, if we don't buy in to his insurance scheme.
I like this idea. Where I live it's as if cars were only introduced 2 years ago and people are still getting used to them. Reckless parking and the running of red lights are serious problems, and the police of course can't be everywhere. Even if the police only act on a minority of these reports - such as repeated reports related to a specific car registration or an area, drivers may be less likely to play silly buggers on the roads. Reckless parking is a serious issue. It forces pedestrians in to the road when cars are parked up on the pavement, blocks traffic, and causes issues when cars are parked on corners or too close to pedestrian crossings.