I would like to further this hypothesis to suggest that the person using the mobile/cell tries to make their conversation more interesting than is actually required. Showing that they have both people to talk to and are involved with something vitally important.
About three months back a report in the UK came out saying that cameras had not reduced the level of violent crime in city centres. But they had reduced the serverity of injuries incurred, becuase the emergency services could be alerted to trouble and its whereabouts quicker.
Cameras? I guess it depends on which end of the boot you are on.
I remember seeing a canadian stand up in the UK who said "I am from Cananda surrounded by the French and the Americans. So when I say I am happy to be here (the UK) I really fucking am." Followed by " I live a 667 next door to the beast"
It is not just the record company owners and artists that make money from selling CDs. There are a whole load of people, who don't get paid massive sums, who are involved from the production of a record to its point of sale.
Refering to the parent post: - Artists can earn money by performing, but do expect actor's to distribute their films for free because they should make money through acting in the theatre. Just becuase a performance isn't live doesn't mean it is not performing.
Van Gogh may not of had a pot to piss in, but he still tried to sell his work and make a living from it.
P2P is a good way of distributing media. But let's be honest for how many people is it that the music is obtained for free. We can't put the P2P genie back in the bottle, but are we willing to except that the artists whose work is distributed should be rewarded for their work. After all we all like to get paid for the work we do.
Surely there is no doubt that if this information fell into the wrongs hands it could be dangerous. Vigilantees, Master Criminals recruiting, malicious entering / tampering of data etc.
However, new (and new uses of) technologies have always been used in law enforcement, and often with positive results. I am sure that there are cases of people being arrested on one charge and being let go, while they are wanted on another charge. Could this system stop that? Of course it could just result in lazy policing.. "We have this crime. Who do we have in the database. Perfec t match now off to the courts."
As citizens we want lower crime rates, and if this helps should it not be supported? But of course it may not stop the people commiting crime in the first place.
with the current level of overcrowding of prisons maybe we have found the way forward - detained in a public school.
All the joys of prison with a first class education.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to further this hypothesis to suggest that the person using the mobile/cell tries to make their conversation more interesting than is actually required. Showing that they have both people to talk to and are involved with something vitally important.
About three months back a report in the UK came out saying that cameras had not reduced the level of violent crime in city centres. But they had reduced the serverity of injuries incurred, becuase the emergency services could be alerted to trouble and its whereabouts quicker.
Cameras? I guess it depends on which end of the boot you are on.
Would it be fraud if software companies put up files of crap that mimic their own titles, in an attempt to put people off p2p?
I remember seeing a canadian stand up in the UK who said "I am from Cananda surrounded by the French and the Americans. So when I say I am happy to be here (the UK) I really fucking am." Followed by " I live a 667 next door to the beast"
It is not just the record company owners and artists that make money from selling CDs. There are a whole load of people, who don't get paid massive sums, who are involved from the production of a record to its point of sale.
Refering to the parent post: - Artists can earn money by performing, but do expect actor's to distribute their films for free because they should make money through acting in the theatre. Just becuase a performance isn't live doesn't mean it is not performing.
Van Gogh may not of had a pot to piss in, but he still tried to sell his work and make a living from it.
P2P is a good way of distributing media. But let's be honest for how many people is it that the music is obtained for free. We can't put the P2P genie back in the bottle, but are we willing to except that the artists whose work is distributed should be rewarded for their work. After all we all like to get paid for the work we do.
The UN has always been "guided" by the most powerful and richest.
Surely there is no doubt that if this information fell into the wrongs hands it could be dangerous. Vigilantees, Master Criminals recruiting, malicious entering / tampering of data etc. However, new (and new uses of) technologies have always been used in law enforcement, and often with positive results. I am sure that there are cases of people being arrested on one charge and being let go, while they are wanted on another charge. Could this system stop that? Of course it could just result in lazy policing .. "We have this crime. Who do we have in the database. Perfec t match now off to the courts."
As citizens we want lower crime rates, and if this helps should it not be supported? But of course it may not stop the people commiting crime in the first place.
Waiting to be checked against your biometric passport. Internal flights only then. (And setting someone up for the body cavity search joke..)
Bletchly Park? What is that got to do with enigma?
I thought that it was the US Navy. Did U-571 lie to me?
with the current level of overcrowding of prisons maybe we have found the way forward - detained in a public school. All the joys of prison with a first class education.