The summary makes it sound like virtual desktops are some new and exciting idea. As the linked Wikipedia article shows, most X window managers have had this feature for at least 20 years.
A lot of the ones mounted on traffic lights are simple devices to just detect you jumping them and to take a photograph. The devices for number plate recognition are widespread in London however, due to the congestion charging, and are becoming more popular on the newer versions of fixed speed cameras which determine your average speed between two points (and hence need to look at the number plate for comparison). Number plate recognition devices are also widely deployed in London on the police cars, for the purposes mentioned in the grandparent. Unsure about other cities though.
These civil orders are the Government's attempts to address the fact that the UK is pretty useless at prosecuting fraud (a large number of newly proposed powers to tackle serious organised crime actually relate to money laundering). I read a newspaper article the other day discussing how the US is much more aggressive at dealing with fraud (think "Natwest Three" being led into court wearing shackles) and how this needs to be fundamentally addressed in the UK. I agree with your fundamental point about prosecution as opposed to civil orders, but unfortunately the current UK government doesn't like to sit down and write well thought-out legislation. Rather, it prefers knee-jerk reactions.
1. The article summary is misleading in that it gives the impression that ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) will be used. It is in fact a new proposed power called a Serious Crime Prevention Order.
2. The article itself is wrong on a point of law about the standard of proof required for ASBOs (note, I'm not a lawyer here, but I'm capable of reading the actual government proposal). It is correct in that they are civil offenses, but the standard of proof is higher than that usually required by civil offenses (due to the McMann judgement) which ruled that as the word "proof" was used in the legislation a standard of proof for section 1(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (partly referring to ASBOs) is that of the criminal standard. For section 1(1)(b) civil standards apply. As I understand it, both sections must be met for an ASBO to be granted. Section 1(1)(a) essentially requires proof of past acts of anti-social behaviour, and section 1(1)(b) refers to intent of future acts. The government is currently proposing a standard of proof somewhere between the criminal and the civil.
3. The government appears to acknowledge that the powers are wide ranging, and as such proposes only allowing the orders to be applied for (yes, they still need to go via the courts) via the High Court, and be appealable to the Court of Appeal.
4. It is up to the UK courts themselves to determine if any such powers legislated are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In theory I believe this could probably be heard all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (High Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> EU) but its judgements are non-binding.
Disclaimers: I'm a Brit. I'm not a lawyer but consider myself fairly well informed. I'm due to start work in a UK non-departmental public body. I haven't made my mind up on these proposals yet.
Useful links:
Government's proposals (also linked in article): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/new-powers- paper.pdf?view=Binary
Home Office information about ASBOs: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.pdf
I can't see if affecting Gaim much. I use it because I dislike all the other clients and I suspect the same is true for a lot of other people. Oh, and I use Jabber (google talk).
Whether or not you think copyright infringement is petty is irrelevant. The fact is that both it and spamming are generally prohibited by the average ISP AUP - you can't ask for one to be enforced and not the other.
I wonder how many of the people complaining about this (i.e. the ISP enforcing their AUP) are also the ones that complain when the ISP doesn't crack down on users spamming.
If I remember correctly, 14.4kbps is the maximum throughput in a single timeslot for High Speed Circuit Switched Data (HSCSD). A GSM voice channel is slightly less.
That's true, but then that's assuming that as more and more people move to IPTV type solutions they'll be remaining with static, pre-rendered video files. This is of course a flawed assumption.
Actually, with some of the more interactive (read dynamic) streams that some multimedia R&D labs are looking to exploit even 15 streams being rendered in (or faster than) real-time is pushing it currently.
Uh, they've always been able to let them go. Police in the UK will sometimes just back right off if it gets too dangerous, and they've never had these sticky balls. They either leave it to the Police helicopter, or if that's unavailable they pull back until the fleeing driver calms down and rejoin (or if it's really dangerous just stop completely). I think this is a good example of the different attitudes between US and UK Police forces, perfectly illustrated by those US Police video programmes that all seem to have "Sherif John Burnell" hosting. US cops are happy to shunt a car from behind and have it smash into some nearby houses ripping the front off, calling the maneuver a success.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary makes it sound like virtual desktops are some new and exciting idea. As the linked Wikipedia article shows, most X window managers have had this feature for at least 20 years.
What makes you think a single package manager is necessarily a good thing? Shouldn't users get a choice?
A lot of the ones mounted on traffic lights are simple devices to just detect you jumping them and to take a photograph. The devices for number plate recognition are widespread in London however, due to the congestion charging, and are becoming more popular on the newer versions of fixed speed cameras which determine your average speed between two points (and hence need to look at the number plate for comparison). Number plate recognition devices are also widely deployed in London on the police cars, for the purposes mentioned in the grandparent. Unsure about other cities though.
I'm pretty sure your insurance company will blame you if you leave your door unlocked and somebody steals all your stuff. Kiss goodbye to your cover.
What specific features is it lacking? (Not trying to criticise here, it fulfils all my needs in the printing department so I'm curious)
These civil orders are the Government's attempts to address the fact that the UK is pretty useless at prosecuting fraud (a large number of newly proposed powers to tackle serious organised crime actually relate to money laundering). I read a newspaper article the other day discussing how the US is much more aggressive at dealing with fraud (think "Natwest Three" being led into court wearing shackles) and how this needs to be fundamentally addressed in the UK. I agree with your fundamental point about prosecution as opposed to civil orders, but unfortunately the current UK government doesn't like to sit down and write well thought-out legislation. Rather, it prefers knee-jerk reactions.
And this is what posts look like when you click Submit by mistake...
1. The article summary is misleading in that it gives the impression that ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) will be used. It is in fact a new proposed power called a Serious Crime Prevention Order. 2. The article itself is wrong on a point of law about the standard of proof required for ASBOs (note, I'm not a lawyer here, but I'm capable of reading the actual government proposal). It is correct in that they are civil offenses, but the standard of proof is higher than that usually required by civil offenses (due to the McMann judgement) which ruled that as the word "proof" was used in the legislation a standard of proof for section 1(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (partly referring to ASBOs) is that of the criminal standard. For section 1(1)(b) civil standards apply. As I understand it, both sections must be met for an ASBO to be granted. Section 1(1)(a) essentially requires proof of past acts of anti-social behaviour, and section 1(1)(b) refers to intent of future acts. The government is currently proposing a standard of proof somewhere between the criminal and the civil. 3. The government appears to acknowledge that the powers are wide ranging, and as such proposes only allowing the orders to be applied for (yes, they still need to go via the courts) via the High Court, and be appealable to the Court of Appeal. 4. It is up to the UK courts themselves to determine if any such powers legislated are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In theory I believe this could probably be heard all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (High Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> EU) but its judgements are non-binding. Disclaimers: I'm a Brit. I'm not a lawyer but consider myself fairly well informed. I'm due to start work in a UK non-departmental public body. I haven't made my mind up on these proposals yet. Useful links: Government's proposals (also linked in article): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/new-powers- paper.pdf?view=Binary
Home Office information about ASBOs: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.pdf
As if most Windows users are any different.
You obviously missed the part in the article about Google facing multiple lawsuits then.
I can't see if affecting Gaim much. I use it because I dislike all the other clients and I suspect the same is true for a lot of other people. Oh, and I use Jabber (google talk).
Don't forget Epiphany!
Whether or not you think copyright infringement is petty is irrelevant. The fact is that both it and spamming are generally prohibited by the average ISP AUP - you can't ask for one to be enforced and not the other.
I wonder how many of the people complaining about this (i.e. the ISP enforcing their AUP) are also the ones that complain when the ISP doesn't crack down on users spamming.
If I remember correctly, 14.4kbps is the maximum throughput in a single timeslot for High Speed Circuit Switched Data (HSCSD). A GSM voice channel is slightly less.
Why couldn't a modified Windows CE be used on APs?
How about AMD Cool'n'quiet chips?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JigdoDownloadHowto
Seems to work fine for me. A search for "Washington" provides the following results: Washington, Tyne and Wear, NE38; Washington, West Sussex, RH20.
That's true, but then that's assuming that as more and more people move to IPTV type solutions they'll be remaining with static, pre-rendered video files. This is of course a flawed assumption.
Actually, with some of the more interactive (read dynamic) streams that some multimedia R&D labs are looking to exploit even 15 streams being rendered in (or faster than) real-time is pushing it currently.
Uh, they've always been able to let them go. Police in the UK will sometimes just back right off if it gets too dangerous, and they've never had these sticky balls. They either leave it to the Police helicopter, or if that's unavailable they pull back until the fleeing driver calms down and rejoin (or if it's really dangerous just stop completely). I think this is a good example of the different attitudes between US and UK Police forces, perfectly illustrated by those US Police video programmes that all seem to have "Sherif John Burnell" hosting. US cops are happy to shunt a car from behind and have it smash into some nearby houses ripping the front off, calling the maneuver a success.