1GB?
You can run a perfectly good commercial program in 12K as long as you page sections of it in from the cassette drive.
(Can we have a "Four Yorkshiremen" icon?)
3323 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
Will they also include the Pastafarians?
"modern pagans, unlike ancient druids, are more concerned with focussing personal energies through ritual than human sacrifice"
The custom of the Druids
Was to drink fermented fluids
And run naked through the woo-ids
And that's good enough for me
I wonder if they could print that collagen structure with a 3-D printer?
That would give them more consistent and better tailored results. And they could tweak things like the surface structure to encourage cells to attach, or add in growth-promoting chemicals and similar optimisations.
This simply does not hold up. Only one cop killed Ian Tomlinson. But it was not one cop, or a tiny minority of them, that decided that no charges were to be brought. That must have been decided at a very high level and agreed among a large number of people.
They knew perfectly well that there would be an outcry. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they went ahead anyway. They didn't give a damn for public opinion. They didn't give a damn for justice. They only cared about protecting one of their own.
That is not a tiny minority. That is systemic
It's technically possible for them to grab this information. Therefore suddenly it's necessary - the country is doomed unless they are allowed to grab it.
They have to destroy our freedom in order to defend it against all the threats they loudly claim are trying to destroy it.
Perhaps they would like to publicly state what information about us they would *not* demand to grab if it were technically possible and not legally forbidden? Could there be any such thing? At all?
Or what conditions would have to apply for the country to *not* be threatened by bogey-men, so they wouldn't need all those powers? Again, could there be any such thing?
Fifty. Eight. Thousand. Photos. And no criminal intent.
So what *was* their intent? What did they think they were doing it for? That's not any kind of casual operation, it must have had some specific reason.
If it wasn't to get photos of undressed students, then the only thing that seems to make sense is that they were spying on students simply because they could.
They had the ability to watch students without them knowing, so they just went ahead and did so. Presumably convincing themselves that they were in charge of the students and supposed to look after them so it was OK to do this.
After all, children don't have any real rights, and the school knows what's best for them better than they or their parents do.
Grab all the information possible, just in case someone somewhere is doing something you don't approve of.
That would certainly fit with the way they were found out. They saw a student eating something and decided "Oh! It must be Drugs!". Because that's how they were justifying it to themselves - that they might spot just that kind of thing happening, and could Save that poor child.
And they'd persuaded themselves of this so much that they went ahead and accused him, and blew the whole thing. They had convinced themselves so strongly that they were justified that they didn't realise the rest of the world might not agree.
It's for their Own Good!
The important point is how often do the emergency drivers have to take over, and in what circumstances? That eight year figure implies there's still a lot of problems.
The really difficult bit will come when they are better than humans in most circumstances. You might find that they would reduce accidents overall, but fail in a few rare circumstances where a human could have coped. Do you then deploy them? And what is the legal position for the victims of those rare accidents? It could get very messy, especially with US lawyers involved.
According to that highly reputable source the BBC in this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11492387
it contains Calcium Oxide, CaO "'Quicklime', can cause skin irritation, burns and sickness."
They are quite correct, that stuff is pretty dangerous, mostly because of the extremely violent way it reacts with water.
So if it's been sitting around in a mud bath and is now in the river, can we see a slight error here children?
Silicon dioxide? "Can cause lung diseases and cancer if inhaled as dust" - ever tried inhaling dust out of a river? Don't go near any beaches, sand is made of the stuff!
Titanium dioxide: "Caused cancer when tested on animals" - that would be the stuff used in white paint?
II think you mean market research?
When I get those I explain to them that they have decided on my behalf that I won't object to such calls even though I am registered as objecting to sales calls. And I ask them why I should co-operate with someone who is so extremely stupid.
However my actual phrasing is very slightly less polite than that.
"They'll probably need to charge for it "
From http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/ :
Q: What difference will The Document Foundation make to users of LibreOffice?
A: LibreOffice is The Document Foundation's reason for existence. We do not have and will not have a commercial product which receives preferential treatment. We only have one focus - delivering the best free office suite for our users - LibreOffice.
All that will do is encourage people to get round it, which won't be difficult - what are they going to do about open source software developed outside the US?
Businesses are going to be very unhappy about having their communications wide open - especially non-US ones operating in the US who don't want all their plans leaked to their rivals.
I simply do not believe that this would be possible without a massive number of false positives (and negatives). If they come to rely on it there will be huge problems.
Oh, and "passport photos. The subject is usually standing right in front of the camera, smiling nicely" - when did you last get a passport renewed? Smiling and looking happy is specifically forbidden, citizen.
"If you look at the industry in which these sort of films get made, women are hurt, exploited and damaged."
And she's going to improve this by oppressive legislation to keep it under cover? Rather than making it legal and open, so the women can have the same rights and status as everyone else, and any exploitation will get exposed and punished?
It's much the same as that old trick of charging extra for every tape because a few of them would be used to copy records.
It's not the ISPs that will pay, it's their customers who will all have to pay increased charges.
So the private music and film industries get to impose a private tax on everyone's communications, to help out their profits.
Place your bets - how long after this is implemented will it be before the first call (from the biggest, richest companies, not from the independents) for the amount we all pay to be increased? Probably as part of the same package as the next extension of the time that copyright lasts for.
There have been plenty of incidents of police and prosecution accidentally forgetting to pass to the defence evidence which helps the defence case.
If they've arrested someone for a crime and confiscated all the photos of what happened, are they going to present all those photos as evidence, or only the ones which help the prosecution case?
Every time you cross a local authority boundary you'll have to know about a different set of rules - most of them passed more for petty politicians to show off their power than for any sensible reason.
They may even contradict the ones from the next-door authority.
And they'll get all changed over to a different set each time a different party gets into power.
The politicians will be able to pass these much faster than pressure groups can organise to get rid of the worst of them.
Don't these idiots realise just how stupid, incompetent, inexperienced, and petty some local politicians are? Or how corrupt some local authorities are?