In the UK, that's a defense. If you can demonstrate that a particular policy is not generally enforced, you can claim victimisation if the company tries to enforce it on you.
To suggest Britain is sleep-walking into a surveillance society fails to address a key factor: Many people welcome or even demand the increased surveillance and lack of privacy.
I don't know whether it's due to perceived reductions in crime associated with invasive surveillance, the results of Government spinning to sell the idea of perpetual monitoring or the FUD coming from the print media.
There is a significant minority in the UK that greatly dislikes the direction we're going in, that is aware of the steady decrease in privacy, and that is getting ignored by the bulk of the population who feel that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
I'm struggling to comprehend how the current direction can be reversed, given a Government bent on introducing new totalitarian measures and constantly pushing the boundaries of the Human Rights Act with the tacit support of the majority of the voting public.
Given that 100 US soldiers have died in Iraq this month, and have manifestly failed miserably to save the lives of hundreds of civilians, maybe the news media are entirely correct to question what they're trying to achieve there.
And maybe the current US administration are scared of losing an election so they're trying to spin the media.
Although now jobs are coming back onshore. Yet the good people have been bitten once already, and anyway, being an 'architect' pays better. So they're not going back either.
(btw, since when did you know what you were doing?)
High earnings are not an indicator of wealth. My expenditure to achieve my earnings is non-trivial. My standard of living does not reflect my gross salary. My level of tax paid gives me significantly less disposable income than people with a considerably lower salary and state benefits.
All of which is offtopic. Whether I'm rich or not, I don't want to subsidise the pollution from the rest of the planet.
No. Directly yes, such a tax would be beneficial. Indirectly the Gov would be forced to find alternate taxes to cover the loss in tax revenue it would cause, and since they also want to reduce congestion they'd introduce very heavy road tolls. I'd be screwed either way.
I may be in the top 1% richest people in the world. I doubt it. I'm far nearer the top 1% most taxed people in the world, and I have no servants and cause minimal financial outlay to the society around me.
I've made serious life choices that greatly benefit the environment. I'm very comfortable that I'm doing my bit.
I don't want taxation on my transport to work. I don't want taxation on my electricity usage. I want alternatives. I want vehicles that don't require hydrocarbon fuels. I want electricity generated from carbon neutral sources. I want pro-active solutions to problems.
What I'm getting instead is increased levels of taxation that will have a greater negative impact on me than a 2 foot rise in sea levels. Meanwhile the rest of the globe will be carrying on their own merry way causing the sea level to rise anyway. Too fucking right I resent this.
Put the funding into new technology. Put the political effort and will into getting the whole globe to change. Apply economic sanctions against countries that refuse to do their bit. Yes, I do mean America.
Don't put new taxes on me that tax arbitrary things to assuage public guilt about what's happening. Do things that'll actually make a difference.
As I said, pick between the planet and the population. I've made my choice.
I didn't say my approach will work. However, the point of 'green' taxes are to reduce the impact on the environment. Since my impact on the environment is immediately massively less than anybody that chooses to have children, any green taxes I get forced to pay are inherently hypocritical.
Add in the fact that the rest of the planet don't appear to give a shit either, and I'm going to end up paying excessive taxation for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Meanwhile people in the US, India and China are going to continue to improve their standard of living while fucking over the planet.
Let the shit hit the fan. Right now 2bn deaths across the globe sounds to me like a good start.
I bought a house on a hill. I drive a fuel efficient car. I don't think any of the current politicians or parties have a sensible approach to taxation.
The government doesn't have to make me do anything. I'm doing my bit. What I want them to do is not do anything, because invariably being single, white, male, intelligent, fully employed, home owning, childless and mobile in the job market makes me the biggest fucking target for any tax changes they choose to introduce.
I don't like living so far from the office. I can not find a job nearer to home. I refuse to waste over £10000 moving to a far worse area to live. Maybe I should just quit working, sell my house, spend all my money and live on benefits for the rest of my life? That'll help the fucking environment.
Sorry, what are we trying to save here? Humans, or the planet?
If you're trying to save humanity, find ways off the planet. Long term the planet is doomed anyway, the only chance of survival is to go extra terrestial.
If you're trying to save the planet, global warming is a great start. It'll drastically reduce the negative impacts of humanity. Sure, there'll be a lot of human deaths. But the planet will recover.
Pick one. Don't force me to change my lifestyle when it's other people causing most of the problem.
Sorry, you're blaming Britain for US slavery despite Britain abolishing slavery a clear half a century ahead of the US and abolishing it throughout the British Empire (a signficant proportion of the world) a couple of decades before the US gave it up?
The British may have introduced slavery for profit making purposes, but it's greedy Americans that chose to keep it.
The memory issue is huge for those with less than a gig of ram
I'm running FF1.5 on an laptop with XP Home and 256MB of RAM. Memory is not something I have to spare.
I don't have problems with Firefox.
Admittedly, this is because I use very few extensions with Firefox on the PC. For development I use another machine, and have a few dev related extensions installed, and it does use more memory.
isolating and counting usage by each extension to show users which is causing the problem
That's a great idea. Have you tried coding it? Have you even suggested it to the Firefox team?
I have Firefox 2 on 2-3 of the PCs I use, and Firefox 1.5 on another couple. I'll run with both for a while, and when a specific aspect of Firefox 2 changes I'll switch all of them. In the meantime, both are better than IE and cheaper than Opera.
I disabled session restore. It thinks that windows killing the browser as part of system shutdown is an unwanted interruption to the session and asks to restore it when i next open the browser.
Slashdot Mirror
In the UK, that's a defense. If you can demonstrate that a particular policy is not generally enforced, you can claim victimisation if the company tries to enforce it on you.
I think
a man who can't do anything to help the situation
Can't, or chooses not to?
"We must kill our enemy" is a sign of cultural insecurity and I'd interpret it as moral inferiority.
Not just americans. The rest of us can also observe the remarkable coincidence.
To suggest Britain is sleep-walking into a surveillance society fails to address a key factor: Many people welcome or even demand the increased surveillance and lack of privacy.
I don't know whether it's due to perceived reductions in crime associated with invasive surveillance, the results of Government spinning to sell the idea of perpetual monitoring or the FUD coming from the print media.
There is a significant minority in the UK that greatly dislikes the direction we're going in, that is aware of the steady decrease in privacy, and that is getting ignored by the bulk of the population who feel that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
I'm struggling to comprehend how the current direction can be reversed, given a Government bent on introducing new totalitarian measures and constantly pushing the boundaries of the Human Rights Act with the tacit support of the majority of the voting public.
The point is that this isn't a particularly strong bomb.
I concur. You can get more powerful bombs through the post. Or detonated on the back seat of a double-decker in London at rush hour.
Given that 100 US soldiers have died in Iraq this month, and have manifestly failed miserably to save the lives of hundreds of civilians, maybe the news media are entirely correct to question what they're trying to achieve there.
And maybe the current US administration are scared of losing an election so they're trying to spin the media.
"grew out of it"? That statement disqualifies you as an engineer.
I'd rather have a good software engineer writing in java than a bad one writing in their favourite language.
Although now jobs are coming back onshore. Yet the good people have been bitten once already, and anyway, being an 'architect' pays better. So they're not going back either.
(btw, since when did you know what you were doing?)
Put it this way. You record yourself blowing Brad Pitt on video and you'll never have to work again.
I don't pretend to be badly off. I'm just challenging the assumption I'm rich. Were it so..
I write to my MP 2-3 times a year on various issues. Any more than that and he'll start to ignore me - my last missive did indeed not get a reply.
Forgive me for using my self-imposed quota to deal with issues such as the right to a fair trial instead of pleading for more money for myself.
High earnings are not an indicator of wealth. My expenditure to achieve my earnings is non-trivial. My standard of living does not reflect my gross salary. My level of tax paid gives me significantly less disposable income than people with a considerably lower salary and state benefits.
All of which is offtopic. Whether I'm rich or not, I don't want to subsidise the pollution from the rest of the planet.
There may be no purpose to human existence. If reproduction makes you feel better about not killing yourself then that's your choice.
(If I'm a 'Dearie' can I have a hug too please?)
No. Directly yes, such a tax would be beneficial. Indirectly the Gov would be forced to find alternate taxes to cover the loss in tax revenue it would cause, and since they also want to reduce congestion they'd introduce very heavy road tolls. I'd be screwed either way.
I may be in the top 1% richest people in the world. I doubt it. I'm far nearer the top 1% most taxed people in the world, and I have no servants and cause minimal financial outlay to the society around me.
I've made serious life choices that greatly benefit the environment. I'm very comfortable that I'm doing my bit.
I don't want taxation on my transport to work. I don't want taxation on my electricity usage. I want alternatives. I want vehicles that don't require hydrocarbon fuels. I want electricity generated from carbon neutral sources. I want pro-active solutions to problems.
What I'm getting instead is increased levels of taxation that will have a greater negative impact on me than a 2 foot rise in sea levels. Meanwhile the rest of the globe will be carrying on their own merry way causing the sea level to rise anyway. Too fucking right I resent this.
Put the funding into new technology. Put the political effort and will into getting the whole globe to change. Apply economic sanctions against countries that refuse to do their bit. Yes, I do mean America.
Don't put new taxes on me that tax arbitrary things to assuage public guilt about what's happening. Do things that'll actually make a difference.
As I said, pick between the planet and the population. I've made my choice.
I didn't say my approach will work. However, the point of 'green' taxes are to reduce the impact on the environment. Since my impact on the environment is immediately massively less than anybody that chooses to have children, any green taxes I get forced to pay are inherently hypocritical.
Add in the fact that the rest of the planet don't appear to give a shit either, and I'm going to end up paying excessive taxation for absolutely no benefit whatsoever. Meanwhile people in the US, India and China are going to continue to improve their standard of living while fucking over the planet.
Let the shit hit the fan. Right now 2bn deaths across the globe sounds to me like a good start.
I bought a house on a hill. I drive a fuel efficient car. I don't think any of the current politicians or parties have a sensible approach to taxation.
The government doesn't have to make me do anything. I'm doing my bit. What I want them to do is not do anything, because invariably being single, white, male, intelligent, fully employed, home owning, childless and mobile in the job market makes me the biggest fucking target for any tax changes they choose to introduce.
I don't like living so far from the office. I can not find a job nearer to home. I refuse to waste over £10000 moving to a far worse area to live. Maybe I should just quit working, sell my house, spend all my money and live on benefits for the rest of my life? That'll help the fucking environment.
Sorry, what are we trying to save here? Humans, or the planet?
If you're trying to save humanity, find ways off the planet. Long term the planet is doomed anyway, the only chance of survival is to go extra terrestial.
If you're trying to save the planet, global warming is a great start. It'll drastically reduce the negative impacts of humanity. Sure, there'll be a lot of human deaths. But the planet will recover.
Pick one. Don't force me to change my lifestyle when it's other people causing most of the problem.
I have a big issue with this though.
I live 52 miles from where I work. I spend a disproportionate amount of my income on diesel because public transport is not a viable option.
Switching taxation to a 'green' basis will hurt me terribly.
At the same time, I've made a very explicit decision not to have children. My impact on the planet will thus be over in under a century.
If you want to tax people that cause a long term impact on the planet, tax children.
Sorry, you're blaming Britain for US slavery despite Britain abolishing slavery a clear half a century ahead of the US and abolishing it throughout the British Empire (a signficant proportion of the world) a couple of decades before the US gave it up?
The British may have introduced slavery for profit making purposes, but it's greedy Americans that chose to keep it.
Yeah, but does it have a "Filterset.G" equivalent? I'm too lazy to block adverts when I can delegate that task to someone I trust.
The memory issue is huge for those with less than a gig of ram
I'm running FF1.5 on an laptop with XP Home and 256MB of RAM. Memory is not something I have to spare.
I don't have problems with Firefox.
Admittedly, this is because I use very few extensions with Firefox on the PC. For development I use another machine, and have a few dev related extensions installed, and it does use more memory.
isolating and counting usage by each extension to show users which is causing the problem
That's a great idea. Have you tried coding it? Have you even suggested it to the Firefox team?
I have Firefox 2 on 2-3 of the PCs I use, and Firefox 1.5 on another couple. I'll run with both for a while, and when a specific aspect of Firefox 2 changes I'll switch all of them. In the meantime, both are better than IE and cheaper than Opera.
I disabled session restore. It thinks that windows killing the browser as part of system shutdown is an unwanted interruption to the session and asks to restore it when i next open the browser.
No thanks.
Plus of course Slashdot has a global audience of people who are also interested in this sort of thing.
The UK allows amendments that can add or remove specific items in a law. These are voted on separately prior to the main vote.
This is surprisingly effective at preventing inappropriate riders on unrelated laws.
Doesn't stop the Government of the day passing a lot of shitty laws of course, but at least the Lords do their bit to try and keep things sane.