My problem is that we're making the same mistakes again, what are control orders and 90 days detention without trial if not internment?
Instead what we should be doing is allowing intercept evidence in courts and perhaps using Diplock style courts for the most dangerous suspects at worst. Yet instead we seem to just get more and more rhetoric and ever more draconian laws from our politicians.
This article http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ul-Vo/United-Kingdom-Counter-Terrorism-Policy.html also seems to dispute your contention. Excerpts: "Parliament... responded to the rise of fundamentalist religious terrorist groups by passing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act in 2001, an action that was criticized by many civilrights groups... After bombs exploded in two pubs in Birmingham... Parliament passed the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1974. The act allowed authorities to arrest suspected terrorists without a warrant and detain them for up to a week without filing charges against them. Suspected terrorists could also be deported from England to Northern Ireland. The policy of internment raised international criticism, as did the practice of "hooding," in which detainees would be isolated and forced to wear hoods over their heads. After an investigation by the European Commission of Human Rights in 1976, the practices of food and sleep deprivation, noise bombardment, forced standing at attention, and hooding were condemned by the body. Despite the commission's decision, the practices continued." etc.
Not trying to start a flame war. I just think the situation's more nuanced than you describe.
- Alaska Jack Yes, I agree, the situation is more nuanced, but I was trying to outline general principles pre-2001. Not take a detailed view of the current state of UK terrorism laws (I'm sorry if I was unclear). I agree that our *current* (i.e. post 2001)anti-terror policies are wrong, but that's because we've forgotten our history. I believe we should have carried our anti-IRA terrorism policies over into out anti-Al Quiada ones, as an example we tried internment against the IRA, we abandoned it when we realised that it was just causing more people to join the IRA. Against Al-Quaida we're using "control orders" that can basically put anyone under house arrest on the suspicion of the police; if that's not just interning people within their own houses I don't know what is.
The interesting thing is we have had this and other restrictions on our liberty because the politicians cry: "everything changed on 9\11". However if you ask the ordinary person on the street, everything didn't change, but still they have no problems with new draconian laws because most don't know about them and the ones that do take the view that the laws are aimed at terrorists and they're not terrorists...
My solution to the problem of the UKs anti-terror laws would be to allow phone-tap and other intercept evidence in court (we currently don't), allow post-charge questioning* (with judicial supervision) repeal control orders, kill the ID cards before they're made compulsory and make use of Diplock courts.
*Currently the government wants to give the police the ability to hold people without charge for upto 90 days, extended from the already draconian 28 days enshrined in recent anti-terror legislation.
I've yet to see one without a slant or bias. here's one: Private Eye magazine satirises everyone in equal measure, the serious stuff it has in it is unbiased as well (or perhaps equally biased against everyone...).
1. Are you an American? If so, fine. If not, let me explain something to you. Watching thousands of people die in a terrorist attack is certainly horrifying whoever you are. But when it's your own country attacked, and your own countrymen dying, it's different in a way that would have been impossible for me to articulate before 9/11. You only really understand when it happens to you. I don't mean to sound patronizing about this -- I didn't understand it either, before 9/11. Very few Americans did. Of course, I knew all about Pearl Harbor, for example; but I suddenly realized how Americans of the time *felt* when they saw those newsreels and heard the radio broadcasts. That's our "perspective."
- Alaska Jack I don't know about the OP, but I'm British, and have lived through more terroist attacks on my countrymenthan I care to remember. We disn't proclaim "the world has changed forever" after each and every one. Indeed I'd argure that's the reason we eventually beat the IRA. The times we took over the top action it backfired; ask the provos what they thought of internment; they loved it.
The key to defeating terrorism is not let yourself be terrorised, just go out and live your life as normal; otherwise the terrorists have already won, they've changed the way you live your life.
Here's some even older "documentation" I don't see anything about Intelligent design in them. Basing your judgement on the age of a document is pointless as it's meaningless when it comes to the truth of that document.
"The older the better", they say. Then us hindus must be right, we go back over 5000 years...;-)
Disclaimer: Whilst I am a hindu, I'm not a literalist, and don't believe in "Intelligent Design", though if ID were ever "proved", the universe was obviously designed by committee and not a single designer. It's far too messy.
This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO. That's because, in a way, it doesn't. Science only yields the current truth, tomorrow everything we believe could be wrong. As the TFA says:
"The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith."
I believe that this a good thing, a lot of people dislike uncertainty, however.
Note the word responsible:
Intrest rates are lower here in the UK than your city (IIRC ~5%; I rent; no mortgage) and house prices are somthing like 11 times average salary. Even so lending at either those rates or the ones you quoted is not responsible as you'd be spending almost all of (if not more than) your monthly income on serviceing your mortgage.
What kind of house did you buy???? Mine cost $150K and the deposit was only $1,000. Have you ever even bought property? The way I got my figures was this: as an undergrad, he'd be lucky to be earning the average annual income according to that link it's £13,302. I don't know the source and I'm sure that's on the low side, so I doubled it, getting £26604. IMO this is probably an average to good starting salary for a graduate student.
A responsible lender shouldn't lend more than four times yearly salary, but with house prices so high, I let him have a mortgage of 5 times salary, giving £133,020 add the £12,000 he won, and you get £145,020 not anywhere near the average house price of £160,000 that I quoted. Indeed an adequate deposit would be closer to £30,000.
From the limited data that you gave me, I can only deduce that you mortgage was sub-prime and therefore part of the reason for the recent global "credit crunch".
Although at least with $25k (which is what, 100 Euro these days?) he might be able to move out of his mom's basement. Actually, he probably can't (at least not with that amount); it's only just over £12,000, and the average house price in Birmingham is almost £160,000. The amount he won probably wouldn't even cover the deposit for his own property.
Considering his apparent IQ, I'd say not very far at all. The guy's such an absolute moron he almost qualifies for "evil genius" status. Why are evil geniuses always so dumb anyway?
If that's not bad enough for you, take a good look at classical Greek and Latin. Nobody could call either of them an intelligent design, either. They look like they might have been created by humans, actually. By big committees of humans.
Of course, someone has made the reasonable-sounding conjecture that the entire universe was designed by some god, and that god was an idiot. If true, it would certainly explain why the universe appears to be such an ungodly mess.
The obvious answer is that the universe was designed by committee.... Polytheism anyone?;-)
Actually, the BBFC is a Private company. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.
Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.
(Basically, "Impossible" could just mean that there is something in the universe that you don't understand, and there are plenty of those, "Improbable" suggests something that you do understand and know to be very, very unlikely. It makes sense in the context of the book, although I hope the creationists don't latch on to it:-) ) It'd funnier if the creationists managed to convince themselves that they had proved the existence of god, as you could then prove he doesn't a la the babel fish...;-)
I'm in the UK and have yet to see an iPhone, apart from the touch screen, can someone explain to me exactly why the iPhone is superior to my current one: a Nokia 6070; a low to mid range phone. Given that, how can it possibly be better than something like an N95; a high end phone. The only real feature I can see from the apple website is the touch screen, not really my priority in a phone. I just want something that can make calls, and send the odd SMS. Having a camera and a radio in my phone are bonuses that I hardly ever use (actually, that's a lie I've started to use the radio quite a bit recently). The only other way that apple tries to show it's differences are via it's ability to sync to my PC, but even my phone can (and does) do that with a data cable and software from Nokia.
I'm in the UK as well, Had Manhunt 2 was refused a rating by the BBFC, not banned; that made it illegal to sell it in the UK, but not illegal to own.
Porn is treated differently and, intrestingly, had Manhunt 2 been porographic instead of violent it would probably recieved an R 18 Cert. AFAIK only snuff films are banned entirely (illegal to own; public decency laws mean quite a lot isn't for sale), although I think that there's a bill banning violent porn on it's way through parliment due to the family of a dead woman blaiming her death on it. I'm at work, so I'm not going to google for links...
This isn't a dis on Windows, but why the heck are you proud of doing the same thing that 90% of everyone else does? Not that I'd ever proclaim myself to be proud of being able to do my job, but "90% of everyone else" have problems turning a computer on and logging in, let alone using or developing for one, Windows or otherwise.
making it illegal to advertise, sell or import into Germany I think that that's probably in breech of EU rules on the free movement of goods. They can't stop someone buying it from the UK or France etc., then taking it home to Germany. Infact they probably can't stop someone ordering it from an (non-German) EU based based on-line shop and getting it mailed to them either.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
From that same cleaning out of the obsolete computers (aren't they all, the moment we buy them?) I have also recovered several hard drives that were in a system that died in early 1998, which may hold much early/. stories in cache files. I think that the/. team would like to hear from you: http://meta.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=313513&cid=20813945
No, but I'd probably shave more often, and actually use a comb and other male grooming products until I got the best view that I could in the mirror (me in women's garb wouldn't be all that attractive). Same applies with an MMO; get the best view I can.
Disclaimer: the above site is my brand new blog*, I first heard about this story yesterday and as such it's the first "real" post, the others being posts on the difficulty of hacking wordpress...
Oh, and the colours are not yet finalised.
*everyone else is doing it, I want to know what the hype's all about.
That's wrong, here in the UK you are still innocent until proven guilty. The Burden of proof is still on the prosecution on this side of the pond and always has been. At criminal level, the jury still has to be satisfied either "Beyond a reasonable doubt" or "so that they are sure" (both phrases meaning the same thing in legaleese).
Slashdot Mirror
My problem is that we're making the same mistakes again, what are control orders and 90 days detention without trial if not internment?
Instead what we should be doing is allowing intercept evidence in courts and perhaps using Diplock style courts for the most dangerous suspects at worst. Yet instead we seem to just get more and more rhetoric and ever more draconian laws from our politicians.
This article http://www.espionageinfo.com/Ul-Vo/United-Kingdom-Counter-Terrorism-Policy.html also seems to dispute your contention. Excerpts: "Parliament
Not trying to start a flame war. I just think the situation's more nuanced than you describe.
- Alaska Jack Yes, I agree, the situation is more nuanced, but I was trying to outline general principles pre-2001. Not take a detailed view of the current state of UK terrorism laws (I'm sorry if I was unclear). I agree that our *current* (i.e. post 2001)anti-terror policies are wrong, but that's because we've forgotten our history. I believe we should have carried our anti-IRA terrorism policies over into out anti-Al Quiada ones, as an example we tried internment against the IRA, we abandoned it when we realised that it was just causing more people to join the IRA. Against Al-Quaida we're using "control orders" that can basically put anyone under house arrest on the suspicion of the police; if that's not just interning people within their own houses I don't know what is.
The interesting thing is we have had this and other restrictions on our liberty because the politicians cry: "everything changed on 9\11". However if you ask the ordinary person on the street, everything didn't change, but still they have no problems with new draconian laws because most don't know about them and the ones that do take the view that the laws are aimed at terrorists and they're not terrorists...
My solution to the problem of the UKs anti-terror laws would be to allow phone-tap and other intercept evidence in court (we currently don't), allow post-charge questioning* (with judicial supervision) repeal control orders, kill the ID cards before they're made compulsory and make use of Diplock courts.
*Currently the government wants to give the police the ability to hold people without charge for upto 90 days, extended from the already draconian 28 days enshrined in recent anti-terror legislation.
1. Are you an American? If so, fine. If not, let me explain something to you. Watching thousands of people die in a terrorist attack is certainly horrifying whoever you are. But when it's your own country attacked, and your own countrymen dying, it's different in a way that would have been impossible for me to articulate before 9/11. You only really understand when it happens to you. I don't mean to sound patronizing about this -- I didn't understand it either, before 9/11. Very few Americans did. Of course, I knew all about Pearl Harbor, for example; but I suddenly realized how Americans of the time *felt* when they saw those newsreels and heard the radio broadcasts. That's our "perspective."
- Alaska Jack I don't know about the OP, but I'm British, and have lived through more terroist attacks on my countrymenthan I care to remember. We disn't proclaim "the world has changed forever" after each and every one. Indeed I'd argure that's the reason we eventually beat the IRA. The times we took over the top action it backfired; ask the provos what they thought of internment; they loved it.
The key to defeating terrorism is not let yourself be terrorised, just go out and live your life as normal; otherwise the terrorists have already won, they've changed the way you live your life.
Here's some even older "documentation" I don't see anything about Intelligent design in them. Basing your judgement on the age of a document is pointless as it's meaningless when it comes to the truth of that document.
Disclaimer: Whilst I am a hindu, I'm not a literalist, and don't believe in "Intelligent Design", though if ID were ever "proved", the universe was obviously designed by committee and not a single designer. It's far too messy.
"The idea that all scientific knowledge is provisional, able to be challenged and overturned, is one thing that separates matters of science from matters of faith."
I believe that this a good thing, a lot of people dislike uncertainty, however.
You got that the wrong way round; it's give them the cricket bat, and send them out against Australia in the first test of the next ashes series...
Note the word responsible:
Intrest rates are lower here in the UK than your city (IIRC ~5%; I rent; no mortgage) and house prices are somthing like 11 times average salary. Even so lending at either those rates or the ones you quoted is not responsible as you'd be spending almost all of (if not more than) your monthly income on serviceing your mortgage.
A responsible lender shouldn't lend more than four times yearly salary, but with house prices so high, I let him have a mortgage of 5 times salary, giving £133,020 add the £12,000 he won, and you get £145,020 not anywhere near the average house price of £160,000 that I quoted. Indeed an adequate deposit would be closer to £30,000.
From the limited data that you gave me, I can only deduce that you mortgage was sub-prime and therefore part of the reason for the recent global "credit crunch".
Considering his apparent IQ, I'd say not very far at all. The guy's such an absolute moron he almost qualifies for "evil genius" status. Why are evil geniuses always so dumb anyway?
Of course, someone has made the reasonable-sounding conjecture that the entire universe was designed by some god, and that god was an idiot. If true, it would certainly explain why the universe appears to be such an ungodly mess.
The obvious answer is that the universe was designed by committee.... Polytheism anyone?
Actually, the BBFC is a Private company. I'm not sure about games, but IIRC when it comes to films, local authorities (being the bodies that licence cinemas) don't even have to accept the BBFCs classification recommendations.
Not that any of this makes it an any more acceptable decision; and I'll be emailing them to let them know what I think of their nanny-stateist approach.
I'm in the UK and have yet to see an iPhone, apart from the touch screen, can someone explain to me exactly why the iPhone is superior to my current one: a Nokia 6070; a low to mid range phone. Given that, how can it possibly be better than something like an N95; a high end phone. The only real feature I can see from the apple website is the touch screen, not really my priority in a phone. I just want something that can make calls, and send the odd SMS. Having a camera and a radio in my phone are bonuses that I hardly ever use (actually, that's a lie I've started to use the radio quite a bit recently). The only other way that apple tries to show it's differences are via it's ability to sync to my PC, but even my phone can (and does) do that with a data cable and software from Nokia.
$5.00, or in my case, about £2.50 ;)
Except that the BPI has explicitly promised that it won't sue people
there was even a slashdot article on it.
Not that that makes the law any better, of course.
I'm in the UK as well, Had Manhunt 2 was refused a rating by the BBFC, not banned; that made it illegal to sell it in the UK, but not illegal to own.
Porn is treated differently and, intrestingly, had Manhunt 2 been porographic instead of violent it would probably recieved an R 18 Cert. AFAIK only snuff films are banned entirely (illegal to own; public decency laws mean quite a lot isn't for sale), although I think that there's a bill banning violent porn on it's way through parliment due to the family of a dead woman blaiming her death on it. I'm at work, so I'm not going to google for links...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
http://meta.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=313513&cid=20813945
No, but I'd probably shave more often, and actually use a comb and other male grooming products until I got the best view that I could in the mirror (me in women's garb wouldn't be all that attractive). Same applies with an MMO; get the best view I can.
It can be fount mirrored here: http://blog.vijaychopra.com/?p=6
Disclaimer: the above site is my brand new blog*, I first heard about this story yesterday and as such it's the first "real" post, the others being posts on the difficulty of hacking wordpress...
Oh, and the colours are not yet finalised.
*everyone else is doing it, I want to know what the hype's all about.
That's wrong, here in the UK you are still innocent until proven guilty. The Burden of proof is still on the prosecution on this side of the pond and always has been. At criminal level, the jury still has to be satisfied either "Beyond a reasonable doubt" or "so that they are sure" (both phrases meaning the same thing in legaleese).
Disclaimer IANAL, this is not legal advice.