While campaigning Tony Blair specifically promised not to retire before the end of the term. If you take the position that voting for individuals is just a legal fiction and that people really vote for parties then Labour lost its mandate to govern when Blair stepped down. Of course, parties never keep any of their election promises anyway...
The title is grossly misleading. It's not about adding a national_id_number field to the criminal record database: it's about forcing everyone who applies for a certificate that they don't have a criminal record to also apply for entry into a "voluntary" database which aggregates far more data than ever previously stored about British citizens.
Once you're in you can't get out, and you become subject to a $1500 fine if you, for example, fail to update the database when you move house.
Moreover, something like 20% of the population need this certificate. Work with children (teacher, nurse, doctor, bus driver)? You need it. Do voluntary work with children (Boy Scout leader)? You need it.
So suddenly the government has several million people signed up and points at them to say, "Look! We told you people wanted to be in our database! Now we're going to make it compulsory."
The political party with the most MPs in Parliament become the government.
That's not the way the term is correctly used in the UK. Her Majesty's Government consists of ministers and holders of certain specific offices, such as the Attorney General, and is composed of MPs and peers. The vast majority of the appointments to those posts are made by the PM, so damburger is correct.
The cultural influences I received growing up conditioned me to see asking for my fingerprints as equivalent to saying that I'm a major suspect in a crime. Therefore routinely asking for fingerprints is worryingly close to "Guilty (we don't know of what, but we'll find something) until proven innocent" - which does indeed seem from an external point of view to be the basis on which US immigration works.
It's not only slow: it also takes up way too much screen space. A line of text per entry is all I want to see, and in a nice small font. I use a plugin called Old Location Bar which solves that problem, although it can't do much about the speed.
Your big mistake here is assuming that the government was elected. In particular, the minister moving this is Lord Mandelson - and he's a Baron because that was the easiest way to get him into government without the pesky election business.
Encrypt it with something which will still be well-known in 16 years - AES-128, for example - and put the key in the time capsule (pencil on paper then laminate; or stamp into metal) along with some copies of media. Keep some encrypted copies out of the capsule and use them for regular integrity checks and duplication.
The top universities in the UK are often accused of elitism. Somehow it never seems to occur to the accusers that they are and remain the top universities precisely because they aim to select the best.
You're making a very common mistake, which is to assume that the CCTV cameras are owned by the government. The majority of CCTV cameras in London are installed privately in shops and offices.
The first amendment doesn't protect you against companies but against the state. If her expectation of anonymity comes from the first amendment then she should be suing the state rather than Google. But anyway, that's completely off topic: my point was simply that she's spouting legal terms without knowing what they mean.
This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. If I can't be pedantic about the meanings of words here without being accused of being amoral, then where should I take my pedantry?
Blogger's privacy policy points to the general Google one, which says (snipped to the relevant stuff):
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
<snip>
We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, <snip>
"Expectation of anonymity"? Where did that come from?
Even better, where did the idea come from that there's a "fiduciary duty" to protect anonymity? A fiduciary duty is to a shareholder, to maximise their return, or to a trustor, to correctly manage the entrusted property. Does Rosemary Port think that she gave her identity to Google to look after for her until she grew up?
Slashdot Mirror
Y chromosomes don't recombinate.
No Y-combinators? So how do you do recursion?
While campaigning Tony Blair specifically promised not to retire before the end of the term. If you take the position that voting for individuals is just a legal fiction and that people really vote for parties then Labour lost its mandate to govern when Blair stepped down. Of course, parties never keep any of their election promises anyway...
40MB hard drive?! Vaya. Twenty years ago I was using a tape player to load games into my 128kB-RAM Amstrad.
The title is grossly misleading. It's not about adding a national_id_number field to the criminal record database: it's about forcing everyone who applies for a certificate that they don't have a criminal record to also apply for entry into a "voluntary" database which aggregates far more data than ever previously stored about British citizens.
Once you're in you can't get out, and you become subject to a $1500 fine if you, for example, fail to update the database when you move house.
Moreover, something like 20% of the population need this certificate. Work with children (teacher, nurse, doctor, bus driver)? You need it. Do voluntary work with children (Boy Scout leader)? You need it.
So suddenly the government has several million people signed up and points at them to say, "Look! We told you people wanted to be in our database! Now we're going to make it compulsory."
.
The political party with the most MPs in Parliament become the government.
That's not the way the term is correctly used in the UK. Her Majesty's Government consists of ministers and holders of certain specific offices, such as the Attorney General, and is composed of MPs and peers. The vast majority of the appointments to those posts are made by the PM, so damburger is correct.
How does it compare to my level 7 handshake?
1.5kB of an mp3. (Thanks to Jammie Thomas we know that a whole mp3 is worth $80k, and I'm assuming 192kb/s and a typical length of 4 minutes).
NB "Christian Scientists" should not to be confused with Christian scientists (e.g. John Polkinghorne).
"Christian Scientists" don't have much to do with either Christianity or science.
The cultural influences I received growing up conditioned me to see asking for my fingerprints as equivalent to saying that I'm a major suspect in a crime. Therefore routinely asking for fingerprints is worryingly close to "Guilty (we don't know of what, but we'll find something) until proven innocent" - which does indeed seem from an external point of view to be the basis on which US immigration works.
It's not only slow: it also takes up way too much screen space. A line of text per entry is all I want to see, and in a nice small font. I use a plugin called Old Location Bar which solves that problem, although it can't do much about the speed.
NASA distributes vast quantities of imagery to the public over bittorrent.
Mandelson was not elected to the current Parliament, though, which is my point. He isn't accountable to any electorate.
Your big mistake here is assuming that the government was elected. In particular, the minister moving this is Lord Mandelson - and he's a Baron because that was the easiest way to get him into government without the pesky election business.
Since goto need to be paired with a label it's the least evil of the group.
I don't follow that argument. Why wouldn't return, which doesn't need a label because it's always unambiguous, not be less evil?
Quick, find the dupe and copy-paste all the +5 Insightfuls!
Encrypt it with something which will still be well-known in 16 years - AES-128, for example - and put the key in the time capsule (pencil on paper then laminate; or stamp into metal) along with some copies of media. Keep some encrypted copies out of the capsule and use them for regular integrity checks and duplication.
The top universities in the UK are often accused of elitism. Somehow it never seems to occur to the accusers that they are and remain the top universities precisely because they aim to select the best.
You're making a very common mistake, which is to assume that the CCTV cameras are owned by the government. The majority of CCTV cameras in London are installed privately in shops and offices.
I'm pretty sure that's what the 3G in the summary refers to.
The first amendment doesn't protect you against companies but against the state. If her expectation of anonymity comes from the first amendment then she should be suing the state rather than Google. But anyway, that's completely off topic: my point was simply that she's spouting legal terms without knowing what they mean.
This is Slashdot, for crying out loud. If I can't be pedantic about the meanings of words here without being accused of being amoral, then where should I take my pedantry?
A desire not to receive spam isn't the same as an expectation of anonymity.
Blogger's privacy policy points to the general Google one, which says (snipped to the relevant stuff):
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
"Expectation of anonymity"? Where did that come from?
Even better, where did the idea come from that there's a "fiduciary duty" to protect anonymity? A fiduciary duty is to a shareholder, to maximise their return, or to a trustor, to correctly manage the entrusted property. Does Rosemary Port think that she gave her identity to Google to look after for her until she grew up?