It's uncanny how the EU implemented these types of restrictions years ago.I think you mean certain countries within the EU, I'm in the UK, and as yet I can still say more or less what I like. Although we have various "hate speech" (which I'm against) laws, they have nothing to do with the EU; and there was a big fuss over here when the latest set of laws were introduced.
Actually, I don't own any of the "next gen" systems yet. I'm a Brit, so I'm still waiting for the Wii on December the 8th, and PS3 somtime in march next year. I've pre-ordered a Wii. The 360 hasn't got any games that really look intresting to me; I'll see what the PS3 is like when it comes out. As for my posting history, at least I log in and have one.
WoW... Anonymous Coward Sony Fanboy Troll do you ever give up?
You end up posting similar messages on every thread that mentions the Wii or PS3 yet you never post any link to a source for your information.Leave him alone, he makes for a brilliant source of comedy;)
People love HD TV. I am not a marketing exec, but I can see that paying to advertise on these services could end in profit. No, UK broadcasters love HD TV, I'm a Brit, and I know very few people with HD TV sets.
Here in the UK, it's never been called a "cell phone", everyone I know has always called it a "mobile phone", or even just a "mobile", anyway, so no need for a name change this side of the Atlantic.
Isn't it strange how Putin's most vocal critics inside Russia are just dropping like flies... Indeed, and these are people who are meant to be on "our side" now. Does anyone really think Russia isn't sliding back towards a totalitarian regime?
This quote, in relation to the raid by the Sweedish government, from TPB legal site sums it up brilliantly:
Just some stats...... here are some reasons why TPB is down sometimes - and how long it usually takes to fix: Tiamo gets *very* drunk and then something crashes: 4 days
Anakata gets a really bad cold and noone is around: 7 days
The US and Swedish gov. forces the police to steal our servers: 3 days .. yawn.
In other words, if somone in another country sues you under law X, and you live and operate in Country Y, you can ignore law X almost totally. You might get a bit of hassle now and then from big corps who think that illegitimate legal threats will be enough to stop you, but as long as you're within the law of your country you don't have much to worry about.
The problem is, that we don't seem to have learned our lesson as a country, the two following administrations, have been little better than Thatcher, many would say our current dear leader is worse. Personally I'd argue that the current Blair administration is worse (loans for peerages, ID cards, DNA database 90 days imprisonment without trial etc. Admittedly all being cheered on by much of the general population), but then I'm only 23 and so don't remember all that much of the Thatcher years.
It's like the entire company is operating under a Kutaragi reality distortion field where they honestly believe they've won all of the past media wars.
Either that or "if a first you don't succeed, try, try and try again" was drummed into him really hard as a child.
"Dictatorship" and "elected" are mutually exclusive.
No they are not, as I said in my previous post many dictators start by getting elected into power, then failing to give it up; hence my comment about Robert Mugabe, now widely considered a dictator, he first came to power through democratic elections. Another famous example would "Godwin" this thread. Secondarally, many dictators regularly hold elections; Saddam Hussain kept on getting 99.9% of the vote; the elections were always uncontested, but they were still elections.
> Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected.
So would I. They had a huge majority in the first two of their three recent election wins - the largest in decades.
This makes no sense; how is a large win undemocratic?
No they didn't - they lost on both votes and seats.
Also, Labour (there's no such party as "NuLabour" in the UK) won
"new" Labour then if you must.
if the Conservatives found the rules unfair they had ample opportunity to change them during their 18 years in power.
Just because the system suited them at the time, dosen't make it any less unfair, I support neither party (nor the lib-dems), and spoiled my ballot paper at the last election.
In recent years Guy Faukes reputation has somewhat been resurrected; it's often said that he's "The only man to ever enter parliament with honourable intentions."
> Of course it'd be cheaper to just
> place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
Let me guess - another Orwell reference, right?
No Orwell reference, just pointing out that placing cameras all around the country to watch people instead of paying someone to follow everyone individually sounds a lot like CCTV to me
It's up to a democratically elected government, yes.
Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe, for example was democratically elected. That aside, my point is that a democratic election doesn't guarantee a democratic government. Here in the UK, we currently have nothing less than an elected dictatorship with an out of check executive. Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected. At the last election the Conservative party won more votes in England than any other party, yet NuLabour got more seats, add to that the numerous Scots MPs (Mostly NuLabour) voting on issues that don't effect them due to devolution, and I'd say that the UK is seriously lacking in democracy department.
I'd like to see the arguments they'd use to argue that doing do would somehow reduce crime. Certainly, I've never seen any.
I'd like to see the evidence that keeping all those expensive CCTV cameras reduce crime. Certainly I've never seen any. In fact, our prisons are now full to overflowing.
Similar legislation exists here in the UK, but we have the NHS in the UK, so paying for health care isn't an issue; discrimination still happens, but it's often to do with perceived problems with the disabled rather than real ones. And it's a problem that's being tackled, but like racist and sexist* based decisions it appears to be declining
*This is probably a bigger problem with lots of bosses reluctant to employ women of childbearing age due to costs of statutory regulations over maternity leave and pay. And yes, like you Americans employers will come up with all sorts of excuses not to hire young women.
And if I paid for all 60mn people in the UK to be followed, with a camera, whilst in public? Of course it'd be cheaper to just place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it.
If you don't get it, than why do you mind me filming you do your "lawful business" but not mind a CCTV camera? To me, they are one and the same. The amount of times I'm caught on CCTV each day the state might as well be paying for a man to be following me (and everybody else) with a camera. And how long your particular business remains lawful is up to the whims of Tony "I'm a straight kinda guy" Blair and the IngSoc^W NuLabour government.
My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me.
In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day, recording you whilst you are out of your house.* After all that's effectively what CCTV cameras are, would you mind if I (as another citizen and resident of the UK) did that? How about if the government did that to everybody? would you mind then? Or is it the lack of a physical person and the ease with which we forget we are being watched that re-assures you?
And if they get up in my face without good reason there are laws that can be employed to prevent/punish them.
It seems perhaps you do mind if someone decided following you with a camera was a good idea. Why? I thought you had nothing to hide, did you not?
*Sounds a bit like the "minders" that many dictatorships use on foreigners in their country, only we can do it without the need for a person, by relying on technology that those countries cannot afford and to our own citizens.
OK Mr "Nothing to hide" What's your full name and address, how much do you earn and how much tax do you pay on it? Post all that here on slashdot please, after all you've nothing to hide, right?
Also would you support mandatory CCTV and microphones placed in peoples houses; that'd make terrorist plots almost impossible to hatch at home, You won't mind a CCTV camera placed in your bathroom will you? You've got nothing to hide.
the PS3 is right around (possibly higher than!) a full rent payment.
It's quite a bit higher; most people I know (i.e students and people who've recently graduated, in other words in the age range of the PS3's target market) are renting at between £60 to £80 a week (for a single room in shared accomadation). They don't have all that much disposable income.
Yeah; I've only noticed that now you pointed it out; my mistake, I read that as £40,000, as opposed to $40,000.
However, my broader point remains even at an income of a minimum of £21,000 you have to take away income tax, NI, Council tax and a million other various taxes; compared to the low tax rate of the USA add that to low prices in the US and our Net spending power isn't all that much greater than that of the average US family. £500($800) is still alot of money for a console, probably more than most average families caan justify spending on what's essentially just a high tech toy.
Certainly $500 for a games console isn't a big deal for most affluant UK households who will have two incomes of approx $40,000 each.
Where abouts do you live? I don't think I know anyone that earns that much, and I consider my family middle class; we live in a nice area in a City in the South of England. I certainly couldn't afford to waste £500 ($800) on a console, and IIRC that's what the PS3 is being released for over here. If we had paraty of price i.e it was being released at around £300; I still couldn't could justify it at launch (March 2007 here for us). £200 (well £170+ 2 games)for a Wii at launch (Yes, I've been sucked in by the hype, and even have a Wii pre-order*), is the top price I'm willing to pay for any toy (all consoles are just expensive toys), be it from Nintendo, Sony or MS.
*My brother even says I've become a Nintendo Fanboi; I dispute this.:)
Thanks for those; great concepts that I'll be trying out soon, no doubt. back on topic, I agree 100% with the GP about Secon Life. It just dosn't feel immersive, and a cursory glance at the links the parent provided (they allow guests to view what's going on) makes them look alot better and much more intresting than SL ever did (for me, atleast).
Slashdot Mirror
It's uncanny how the EU implemented these types of restrictions years ago.I think you mean certain countries within the EU, I'm in the UK, and as yet I can still say more or less what I like. Although we have various "hate speech" (which I'm against) laws, they have nothing to do with the EU; and there was a big fuss over here when the latest set of laws were introduced.
Actually, I don't own any of the "next gen" systems yet. I'm a Brit, so I'm still waiting for the Wii on December the 8th, and PS3 somtime in march next year. I've pre-ordered a Wii. The 360 hasn't got any games that really look intresting to me; I'll see what the PS3 is like when it comes out.
As for my posting history, at least I log in and have one.
WoW ... Anonymous Coward Sony Fanboy Troll do you ever give up?
;)
You end up posting similar messages on every thread that mentions the Wii or PS3 yet you never post any link to a source for your information.Leave him alone, he makes for a brilliant source of comedy
People love HD TV. I am not a marketing exec, but I can see that paying to advertise on these services could end in profit.
No, UK broadcasters love HD TV, I'm a Brit, and I know very few people with HD TV sets.
Here in the UK, it's never been called a "cell phone", everyone I know has always called it a "mobile phone", or even just a "mobile", anyway, so no need for a name change this side of the Atlantic.
Isn't it strange how Putin's most vocal critics inside Russia are just dropping like flies...
Indeed, and these are people who are meant to be on "our side" now. Does anyone really think Russia isn't sliding back towards a totalitarian regime?
why is anyone using this ridiculous buzzwords?
/.ers to tag articles like this "buzzwordhype" ?
To allow us
The problem is, that we don't seem to have learned our lesson as a country, the two following administrations, have been little better than Thatcher, many would say our current dear leader is worse. Personally I'd argue that the current Blair administration is worse (loans for peerages, ID cards, DNA database 90 days imprisonment without trial etc. Admittedly all being cheered on by much of the general population), but then I'm only 23 and so don't remember all that much of the Thatcher years.
It's like the entire company is operating under a Kutaragi reality distortion field where they honestly believe they've won all of the past media wars.
Either that or "if a first you don't succeed, try, try and try again" was drummed into him really hard as a child.
It'll be a UK\Europe PS3 launch title.
"Dictatorship" and "elected" are mutually exclusive.
No they are not, as I said in my previous post many dictators start by getting elected into power, then failing to give it up; hence my comment about Robert Mugabe, now widely considered a dictator, he first came to power through democratic elections. Another famous example would "Godwin" this thread. Secondarally, many dictators regularly hold elections; Saddam Hussain kept on getting 99.9% of the vote; the elections were always uncontested, but they were still elections.
> Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected.
So would I. They had a huge majority in the first two of their three recent election wins - the largest in decades.
This makes no sense; how is a large win undemocratic?
No they didn't - they lost on both votes and seats.
In England as opposed to the UK as a whole the Tory party won more votes (by about 60,000 but got 90 fewer seats.)
Also, Labour (there's no such party as "NuLabour" in the UK) won
"new" Labour then if you must.
if the Conservatives found the rules unfair they had ample opportunity to change them during their 18 years in power.
Just because the system suited them at the time, dosen't make it any less unfair, I support neither party (nor the lib-dems), and spoiled my ballot paper at the last election.
In recent years Guy Faukes reputation has somewhat been resurrected; it's often said that he's "The only man to ever enter parliament with honourable intentions."
> Of course it'd be cheaper to just > place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
Let me guess - another Orwell reference, right?
No Orwell reference, just pointing out that placing cameras all around the country to watch people instead of paying someone to follow everyone individually sounds a lot like CCTV to me
It's up to a democratically elected government, yes.
Lots of Nasty regimes were democratically elected when they came to power; Robert Mugabe, for example was democratically elected. That aside, my point is that a democratic election doesn't guarantee a democratic government. Here in the UK, we currently have nothing less than an elected dictatorship with an out of check executive. Besides, I would even contend that our current government was democratically elected. At the last election the Conservative party won more votes in England than any other party, yet NuLabour got more seats, add to that the numerous Scots MPs (Mostly NuLabour) voting on issues that don't effect them due to devolution, and I'd say that the UK is seriously lacking in democracy department.
I'd like to see the arguments they'd use to argue that doing do would somehow reduce crime. Certainly, I've never seen any.
I'd like to see the evidence that keeping all those expensive CCTV cameras reduce crime. Certainly I've never seen any. In fact, our prisons are now full to overflowing.
Similar legislation exists here in the UK, but we have the NHS in the UK, so paying for health care isn't an issue; discrimination still happens, but it's often to do with perceived problems with the disabled rather than real ones. And it's a problem that's being tackled, but like racist and sexist* based decisions it appears to be declining
*This is probably a bigger problem with lots of bosses reluctant to employ women of childbearing age due to costs of statutory regulations over maternity leave and pay. And yes, like you Americans employers will come up with all sorts of excuses not to hire young women.
Though I disagree with much of his post, he's right about that part: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Echelon+proje ct&btnG=Google+Search
me being singled out
And if I paid for all 60mn people in the UK to be followed, with a camera, whilst in public? Of course it'd be cheaper to just place cameras in strategic locations around the country (what does that remind you of?)
What IS the problem with being filmed as you go about your lawful business? I don't get it.
If you don't get it, than why do you mind me filming you do your "lawful business" but not mind a CCTV camera? To me, they are one and the same. The amount of times I'm caught on CCTV each day the state might as well be paying for a man to be following me (and everybody else) with a camera. And how long your particular business remains lawful is up to the whims of Tony "I'm a straight kinda guy" Blair and the IngSoc^W NuLabour government.
My location on the street etc is anyone's business who takes the effort to watch me.
In that case I'll pay for a masked man with a digital video camera to follow you about 24hrs a day, recording you whilst you are out of your house.* After all that's effectively what CCTV cameras are, would you mind if I (as another citizen and resident of the UK) did that? How about if the government did that to everybody? would you mind then? Or is it the lack of a physical person and the ease with which we forget we are being watched that re-assures you?
And if they get up in my face without good reason there are laws that can be employed to prevent/punish them.
It seems perhaps you do mind if someone decided following you with a camera was a good idea. Why? I thought you had nothing to hide, did you not?
*Sounds a bit like the "minders" that many dictatorships use on foreigners in their country, only we can do it without the need for a person, by relying on technology that those countries cannot afford and to our own citizens.
OK Mr "Nothing to hide" What's your full name and address, how much do you earn and how much tax do you pay on it? Post all that here on slashdot please, after all you've nothing to hide, right?
Also would you support mandatory CCTV and microphones placed in peoples houses; that'd make terrorist plots almost impossible to hatch at home, You won't mind a CCTV camera placed in your bathroom will you? You've got nothing to hide.
the PS3 is right around (possibly higher than!) a full rent payment.
It's quite a bit higher; most people I know (i.e students and people who've recently graduated, in other words in the age range of the PS3's target market) are renting at between £60 to £80 a week (for a single room in shared accomadation). They don't have all that much disposable income.
Yeah; I've only noticed that now you pointed it out; my mistake, I read that as £40,000, as opposed to $40,000.
However, my broader point remains even at an income of a minimum of £21,000 you have to take away income tax, NI, Council tax and a million other various taxes; compared to the low tax rate of the USA add that to low prices in the US and our Net spending power isn't all that much greater than that of the average US family. £500($800) is still alot of money for a console, probably more than most average families caan justify spending on what's essentially just a high tech toy.
Certainly $500 for a games console isn't a big deal for most affluant UK households who will have two incomes of approx $40,000 each.
:)
Where abouts do you live? I don't think I know anyone that earns that much, and I consider my family middle class; we live in a nice area in a City in the South of England. I certainly couldn't afford to waste £500 ($800) on a console, and IIRC that's what the PS3 is being released for over here. If we had paraty of price i.e it was being released at around £300; I still couldn't could justify it at launch (March 2007 here for us). £200 (well £170+ 2 games)for a Wii at launch (Yes, I've been sucked in by the hype, and even have a Wii pre-order*), is the top price I'm willing to pay for any toy (all consoles are just expensive toys), be it from Nintendo, Sony or MS.
*My brother even says I've become a Nintendo Fanboi; I dispute this.
Thanks for those; great concepts that I'll be trying out soon, no doubt. back on topic, I agree 100% with the GP about Secon Life. It just dosn't feel immersive, and a cursory glance at the links the parent provided (they allow guests to view what's going on) makes them look alot better and much more intresting than SL ever did (for me, atleast).
It'll get eaten by a grue
Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_fiction