* Posts by Mad Mike

1379 publicly visible posts • joined 30 May 2007

UFO ruled out of wind farm prang

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Doesn't add up.

Not only is the explanation a problem as explained by other people above, but also for another reason. For the loss of a blade to cause damage to another through impact, it requires the blades to be spinning and reasonably fast. This is obviously normal as otherwise, they're not generating electricity. However, if a blade is lost from a turbine, it causes such an imbalance in the hub that the tower will fall over!! The damage to the second blade makes this even more so. If people remember, there was a video on YouTube some time ago showing the blades coming off a turbine. This is specifically to avoid damage to the tower. It's much easier to replace a couple of blades than a whole tower!! Indeed, they even have safety systems to shed the blades if necessary, specifically to prevent this!!

So, to cut to the chase. If the blade coming off did the damage as he says, the turbine must have stopped turning almost immediately and in a such a way, it didn't damage the other blade.......... Otherwise, the tower would have toppled. As two blades were still attached, the release mechanism obviously wasn't activated.

In other words, his explanation doesn't make sense..............

British troops to wear smart earplugs in Afghan combat

Mad Mike
Joke

Madness

Surely, if hearing loud noises is dangerous and could damage your hearing, we should remove the biggest threat on the battlefield...............dying. How on earth can they continue to allow bullets, grenades and bombs etc, to be used when they could cause death, let alone hearing loss. One for the health and safety committee if you ask me....

Doner kebabs: Death wrapped in pitta bread

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

Another weapon of war

Bearing in mind a Kebab is basically deadly, couldn't we fight wars this way. Drop some 'humanitarian' aid and wait a few years?

Cops taser JCB thief in 'slowest police chase ever'

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Use of Tasers

I think the issue here is not the use of the taser per se. It was probably the most obvious choice under the circumstances. However, when they were introduced, it was said they would be used only when the only other alternative is to open fire with live ammunition. i.e. immediately below firearms. Therefore, use in these circumstances was not within their original stated case.

So, just like in the US and elsewhere, tasers are going to become more and more common and used more and more in any situation even remotely dangerous. You only have to look at the US to see what will start happening here. Drunk and a bit stoppy, that'll be a tasering for you.

Paris - Cos she knows what a policemans real weapon should be line - a truncheon.

Danish SWAT team surrounds PlayStation shoot-'em-up

Mad Mike
Stop

Planks

Unless they were playing a very mild 'shoot em up' style game, the sound of multiple automatic weapons blasting away thousands of rounds of ammunition with no external sign of damage to the apartment would probably have given the game away to anyone of avereage intelligence. Says a lot about the people.

Follow the Somali pirate scourge via Google mashup

Mad Mike

Same as terrorists

Piracy is basically terrorism of the seas. Most of the developed world has a standard policy for terrorism. You never deal with them and if the opportunity arises, you send in the armed forces. Iranian Embassy etc.etc. The reason is not to stop it entirely; you never will. The reason is that to deal or do nothing will simply encourage them more and more and the incidence will rise. So, you either keep it ticking along at a low rate by taking a firm stance, or you give in and see the numbers rise exponentially.

The US has various naval units specifically tasked with retaking ships and sea platforms of various types. There's no point maintaining forces if you're not prepared to use them. So, in you go..................

With the average pirate ship having no more than RPGs and light weapons, it doesn't actually take that much to deal with them. RPGs are of no practical use beyond a very short distance and the heavy structural steel used in ships (at least any of a decent size) maken them pretty useless at causing anything but light damage. Additionally small arms fire is not very effective against the steel either.

Free passports for WWII generation hit 500,000

Mad Mike
Pirate

Bravery

There are several angles on this. Without doubt everybody during the war (from the youngest to the oldest) was brave. However, they did not totally fight for the future generations, but also for their generation, so let's stop this selfless bit. Yes, it's obviously much better for us to have grown up in Britain without the Nazis, but I'm sure they feel better for that too.

Given that, what about todays armed forces. Is someone who fought in Afghanistan and maybe lost both legs any less brave or deserving of a free passport than a WWII survivor?

This is all a publicity stunt. They know it won't cost much as few people old enough to qualify will still want them. But, they can strut around on stage looking all nice and warm and cuddly. Makes you sick. Just like the generals in WWI sitting in their nice chateau behind the lines whilst sending hundreds of thousands over the top to be slaughtered.

On top of this, the similarities between this government and the Nazis are startling. Identification papers, being told what to do and believe all the time etc.etc.

Doctors: Third babies are the same as patio heaters

Mad Mike

Cretins

Perhaps these idiot doctors should think of the logical conclusion to their idea. Your worth would be judged on the amount you do (e.g.work etc.) against your carbon cost. Therefore, if you're gainfully employed doing a lot of good quality work, you're worth more than a pensioner for instance. Therefore, all unemployed people are the same as pensioners. Cost a lot of carbon for no gain.........................

Next logical step....................

Seems like the Nazis are still around.

UK ISPs agree to menace their filesharing users

Mad Mike
Thumb Up

Common sense and legality

Common sense and legality come into the enforcement of this but seem to have been missed to date. Firstly, is it the process of making a copyright file available for download illegal, or performing the download, or both. In other words, is it the client or the server that's acting illegally. The reason is all wrapped up in common sense.

When you spot a file for download online, how do you as the client know whether it is copyright or not and therefore whether you may legally download it? You can't. There is no way you can. Even if it's of a recent sony, the legal owner of the copyright may well be giving it away. As a client, you have no idea. Therefore, you either have to download nothing or you have to put the onus on the poster or server end. It's common sense. It's the only thing you can do. In reality, you have to put the onus on the server as if you stopped downloading anything potentially copyright, the web would be unuseable. You couldn't download a single web page as there might be a picture of text or something on there that is copyright etc.

So, the only practical and common sense approach is to ignore the client (who doesn't know) and go after the servers (who should know). However, this may not tally with the law at it currently stands. There is also the issue of practicality. Trying to protect copyright of these sorts of materials in todays world is, from a practical perspective, impossible. They've been putting all sorts of DRM on things for years and not one of them has worked. The 'community' can get around anything electronic like that and therefore regardless of what the law says and regardless of the moral standpoint, it is from a practical perspective impossible to stop.

Therefore, only one solution presents itself. That is for the record companies etc. to change their model into something that can either be protected effectively and practically, or to something which people (from a moral perspective) won't try to get around. Take open source software for instance. You can't protect the software itself because it's open source. Therefore, plenty of companies are simply charging for support contracts. You don't pay, you don't get support. An enforceable model.

Most people have suggested it is not the issue of paying for music that causes the problem, but the fact they are being ripped off. Therefore, this file sharing is simply vigilante action against the ripping off. Not saying it's right, but that's the predominant reason. If the record companies were to offer their product at a far more sensible price, evidence suggests a lot of the file sharing would cease. You could, for instance, offer people access to any track for £10 a month. Record company profits would diminish, but they would still make enough.

The law is way out of step with technology. For instance, in the UK it is technically illegal to rip a CD onto a MP3 player. How stupid is that? We need to change the law and we need to change the business model as well and the record companies are the people refusing to change. People are quite readily, by using mobile players of various types etc. and the file sharing itself.

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Tony Chandler

'But face it, people will continue to ste- I mean "infringe copyright" on music even if the music companies were selling their albums legally for 50p a pop.'

Yes, some people will, but evidence suggests the majority will not. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the law is so old it ignores the practicalities of enforcement in todays world and the fact that the record companies business model is no longer viable and therefore should fail. Very few people would deny music companies the right to make a profit, but people would like to see it be a sensible profit. As record companies have been breaking the law for years by running monopolies and cartels and restrictive practices (regioning etc.), it is rather hypocritical for them to now complain when people break a few other laws!!

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Big Boomer

'Bunch of bloody Thieves

By Big_BoomerPosted Thursday 24th July 2008 09:26 GMT That's what you are if you illegally download music or movies or anything that is copyrighted. You are thieves, plain and simple.

You are not "pirates", you are stealing the fruits of someone elses work.

You may think you are cool but we know different.

You are a tightwad, scumbucket of a thief and if you get caught I hope they throw the book at you and then insert it where the sun don't shine.

Do I work for the music industry? Nope.

Am I sick of hearing tightwads whinge about how their ISP or the government is stopping them from stealing. Oh YES!

You want music or movies, then fucking pay for them!'

Before you start ranting away and having a go at all manner of people, I suggest you get your facts right. They are not thieves, they are breaching copyright. Vast difference. Theft is a criminal offence, copyright violations are civil etc.etc. Therefore, your statement is 100% rubbish. Additionally, running a protected market, cartels etc.etc. that the music industry have been doing for years is actually an offence and controlled by the DTI and Competition Commissioners etc. However, as they're existance is to help big business, they're not exactly likely to help the average joe bloggs being overcharged.

The truth is that the music companies have been ripping people off (and breaching competition laws etc., running protective systems (regioning) etc.) for years. Successive governments have done nothing about it to stop them, even though it is illegal and therefore the general public are now doing their own form of enforcement. It may be crude and it may be criminal in its own right and maybe two wrongs don't make a right, but that's what's happening and is what happens when governments don't enforce the law, both statute and common.

Much the same as failure to tackle paedophiles etc. often results in vigilante action. Vigilante action is generally caused by a failure of the authorities to deal with a problem and that is eactly what's happening here.

Paris.......welll, because she's got more brains.

UK comms intercepts up by half - and it isn't the council

Mad Mike
Unhappy

Proportionality

I just love the commissioners and the like talking about councils and proportionality. They don't know the meaning of the word!! Bin lid up a couple of inches, throw the book at the disgusting criminal lout. Wheels stop turning for a split second whilst near a double yellow line, slap a ticket on them. Lots of accidents at a particular spot on the road. Sort out the rubbish road layout etc? Nah. Put up a speed camera. Someone trying to get their child into a good school? Shall we improve the schools? Nah. Just trawl through the peoples records and show them for the criminal scum they are for trying to improve their childs education.

Yep. Councils really know what they are doing and ensure proportionate methods are used...........not.

Twenty years ago, the above would have made good content for a standup comic. Problem is, it's come true!!

EU abolishes the acre

Mad Mike

Stupidity

Changing from one set of units to another is really stupid. If everything within a country is measured in one set of units, everything is setup for that. The only people that really need to worry about conversion are those in import/export and people on holiday. No big deal.

Then, you attempt to change units and chaos ensues. People don't understand the difference (whether old or young) and start making mistakes everywhere. Houses that were built in imperial have to accept doors, windows etc. etc. built around the metric system. Nothing really fits anymore. My house was built with 1/2inch, 1inch, 2inch etc.etc. wood. Can I now get that? In some cases yes, but not all. None of my replacement doors are the same thickness. Can you get 12.5mm (ish) timber? No. Pain in the a**e.

It doesn't matter what the units are provided they are consistent within a country. As someone said earlier, why not choose one language and standardise on that? That would be far easier for international trade etc.etc. Why not get rid of everything that makes people different until we amalgamate into a single standardised mass. God, how boring would that be. Don't these people understand that everyone being different is what makes things good.

Eurofighter at last able to drop bombs, but only 'austerely'

Mad Mike

Craig Graham

' I was noseying around one of the aircraft a year or so ago and an example of one of the future upgrades that's been deliberately left open in the design is vectored thrust, which in conjunction with more engine power will allow the aircraft to do tail slides, like the SU-27.'

Interesting analysis. The SU-27 does not have thrust vectoring and a tail slide does not require it. Additionally, the Typhoon has a thrust to weight ratio in excess of unity and therefore more engine power is not required. Indeed, the only thing required for a tail slide is auto-ignitors on the engines. Air rushing up your tailpipes has a tendency to cause the engines to flame out. Rather bad news when you're effectively hovering (or moving very slowly) in the air like that.

Also, a tail slide is absolutely worthless in todays world. Indeed, anyone trying it would make a huge target of themselves without any ability to get out the way. A strictly airshow act only.

The only problem with the Typhoon is that like everything else in this country, it always goes massively over budget and takes forever.

Available to buy: your own frakkin' 7ft Cylon

Mad Mike
Alien

Fleshy Cylons

I don't fancy one of those, but if he can make a 7ft replica of the more fleshy cylons (blonde maybe?), I could be interested................

Biggles battles Yanks for right to sport tash

Mad Mike
Joke

Jonny F

'Fly right Lt Ball'.

Using normal printer spelling makes this light ball in the same way as 'Lt Cyan' etc.

How dare you insult our flyboys. I'm sure his equipment is perfectly heavy.

UK appeal court dismisses mod chip conviction

Mad Mike

Bit rich

It really is rich of companies to complain about mod chips when one of their primary purposes is to prevent people from buying games from other 'regions' and using them. Selling disks in Europe at very high prices when selling them for far less elsewhere is a simple rip off. They should learn the reality, as should the music and film companies. Rip off the consumer using 'region' and similar technology, and the customers will return the favour. And the company will never win as a way round whatever they do will always be found.

Taser gun usage soaring among UK cops

Mad Mike

@Mark

In an ideal world, everything you say is true. However, this isn't ideal and the overriding factor you have to take into account is exactly what Reid is talking about. The police will have had huge quantities of testosterone and adrenalin amongst other chemicals/hormones coursing through their bodies. No amount of training can prepare you for that. The effects are varied and can be huge. When in that situation, they are going to err on the side of caution. That is natural, especially given the circumstances. They have every reason to believe this man will detonate the bomb. In his mind, he's already dead. Do you therefore fire once and then ascertain the effect before stopping, or firing again? No. That would give him time to detonate if the single shot did not kill him outright. So, you fire until you're sure. The number of rounds would depend on the person, but I would expect 3-4 rounds to be the minimum. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they fired the entire magazine.

Now, the issue of whether to shoot or not. There are a variety of reasons for this. Firstly, they don't know how the bomb is detonated. It could have a remote in someone elses hands. If no explosion is heard within a certain time of the bomber entering the station, they might detonate it. There could be triggers all over the persons body as well. He might already have one in his hand. In any event, the only sure answer is to kill him, evacuate the area and leave him there. If remote detonation devices exist, that leaves it to the bomb squad.

It's very easy to look at these circumstances from the comfort of a chair, but operationally, it is very different. We also have some knowledge they dd not have. Such as the fact it wasn't a suicide bomber etc. Regardless of whether you believe that knowledge affects your decision, I can assure you it does, just as much as the knowledge he definately was a suicide bomber affected the polices.

Mad Mike

Mark

In response to the Stockwell incident:-

a) Perfectly reasonable. A suicide bomber could have the trigger anywhere. If a suicide bomber has the bomb on, the only way to make him safe is to kill him. Period. Suppose they held him and whilst stuggling lost grip for a second. He then detonates it. You can't take that risk. Also, even the most professional person would be scared in that circumstance and the difference between 4 and 7 rounds doesn't come into it in that case. If the objective is to kill, the number of rounds is also irrelevant. 1 or 7, the effect desired is the same and it is the desire that counts.

b) Agreed. Very bad. However, a lot of this, although not all, was from senior commanders. Also, as soon as they realised it was the wrong person, they knew they were going to be ripped apart regardless of the rights and wrongs of their actions.

Professional calm is a great theory, but in those circumstances, I defy anyone to be completely detached, professional and calm etc. With that amount of testosterone and adrenalin surging through your body, it simply isn't going to happen regardless of the amount of training etc.

The Met chief should have resigned over the incident, as I believe he knew he was telling untruths. However, I'm sure he would disagree. However, as I said before, the moral difference is the intent, not the effect. A terrorists intent is to kill people, probably innocent. A police officers intent (and hopefully theirs) is to protect the public and themselves, which might involve killing someone. A whole different intent and therefore a whole different set of morals. The fact that it ended up with the same effect is not relevant.

In defence of the Met chief, he was actually right in that comment. A few innocent deaths are inevitable. That's not to say we shouldn't do everything we can to minimise it, but it is fantasy land to assume nobody will accidently get killed.

Mad Mike

Perspective

I think people need to get some perspective here. Whilst there may be some bad policemen (there are in any profession), the vast majority are actually good and operating under extreme pressure. Society is becoming more violent, their hands are becoming more tied and they are attacked within the press etc. at every opportunity. Politicians tinker around with laws all the time introducing loads more to understand and enforce, the current vogue being making them so vague, interpretation and a certain amount of miss-use is inevitable.

As for the mistakes. Whilst accepting that the result was in error, it is not this that defines the actions as good or bad, but the circumstances etc. leading to it and what people believed. In the Stockwell Tube shotting, the officers on the ground were told that the man was definately the bomber. They were led to believe he probably had the bomb on and was on the way to using it. Therefore, when asked to stop him, they believed they were dealing with a man wearing a bomb vest, very willing to use it etc. Common sense would probably tell people to run in the opposite direction, but they ran towards him and used lethal force to prevent the detonation of the bomb they believed him to be carrying. The number of rounds fired is irrelevant. You use as many as is necessary to ensure the person can't detonate the bomb and then add a few for safety. So, the issue here is not the people pulling the trigger, but the whole inept chain of command that ran the operation so ineptly that the people on the ground were lef to believe a complete fantasy. In reality, he had not been positively identified etc.etc. So, don't blame the shooters, but the senior commanders etc.

The same can be said of many of the other instances. Circumstances can lead to life and dealth decisions being made in a split second, often with inadequate or wrong information available. Under these circumstances, mistakes will be made. It doesn't necessarily make the person pulling the trigger a bad person, simply someone that tried to make the best decision he could and got it wrong. The fact the result was in error doesn't necessarily mean the actions or events leading up to it were wrong. Also, people need to understand that being drunk and refusing to obey armed officers is simply not a good idea.

Armed officers are putting themselves in harms way under very restrictive rules of engagement. There are many components of the decision making process that are far from satisfactory in these circumstances. The extreme stress normally present at the time, the lack of information (sometimes), the testosterone and adrenalin surging through their bodies etc.etc. None of these are known as catalysts for good decisions, but they are normally present. It's very easy to judge in the cold light of day, or a comfortable courtroom, but much harder to do it for real. Erring on the side of caution is understandable.

The difference with the use of tasers is that often they are used when these factors are not present. The Canadian hospital patient is a good example. The circumstances were such that a sensible, considered decision should have been possible. Indeed, this is a very good reason why tasers are of limited operational relevance. According to the guidelines, tasers are only supposed to be used when the alternative is lethal force i.e. firearms. However, if you are in a situation when firearms are justified, you or someone else must be in immediate danger. In these circumstances, you'll probably want someone more reliable and certain than a taser e.g. a firearm. In circumstances when you have more time etc. to make a considered decision, tasers are not supposed to be used!!

So, what people are afraid of, and there's a lot of evidence to support it, is that tasers are being used outside the guidelines and when other methods would have been used in the past. Whether this is right or not should be a matter of a public debate, but the government are not good at this. They only talk to people who support their position!!

If you have to confront a knifeman, is a taser a suitable method of disarming him? Possibly. However, as has been shown by stories from around the world, rather than being a considered option, it is often the default assumption and therefore used when not appropriate. Again, the hospital patient in Canada is a good example. Additionally, if a non-ranged use occurs, this rather defies the purpose of a taser. The point of a taser (generally) is that you can disable a person without getting too close. So, if your within arms length (and a non-ranged use mandates this), you've already put yourself at risk!!

Mounties taser bed-ridden octagenarian

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

@Anonymous Coward

"Chip on your shoulder much? AFAICS the lefties are the ones arguing that the coppers should have grown a pair and taken the risks like men, and the law'n'order wing-nuts are the ones who argue that anyone who steps out of line for a second is fair game for massively disproportionate punishment because we should all be obedient to our superiors in society."

Nope. The loony lefties are the ones that introduce all the stupid health and safety rules that prohibit doing anything more risky than cutting your toe nails. Therefore, they're the ones causing the stupid rules than may well have been a contributory factor here.

Posted by the man not hiding behind 'Anonymous Coward' and not posting from a bunker.

Paris because she's got more balls than the mounties or some people posting.

Mad Mike

Anonymous Coward and all the apologists for this act.

As the people defending the mounties haven't even done the most basic of checking, I looked up the article on news websites. The knife in question had a 8cm blade. Now, bearing that in mind, we're looking at a penknife or similar. Might be sharp, but not exactly a special forces killing knife. Also, as he pulled this from his trousers, it rather questions the competence of the staff in not spotting the knife. He had been in theatre!!

Now, to tackle anonymous coward and his fantasies.

The oxygen pipe is not likely to be an issue. Firstly, they only let out a trickle of oxygen, not a gushing torrent, so the oxygen levels in the room would be unaffected even after several hours. Stragely enough, any oxygen he doesn't breathe in escapes into the room anyway!! So, no fire hazard outside the very immediate area. These things are also designed to come off easily and with no damage in the event of being caught. So, no risk to the man either. Your first point is total rubbish. Additionally, once subdued, they would simply reattach the oxygen. Clearly any time he is without it, is not good, but the time involved would be short.

Whilst I appreciate all the loony lefties etc. try to claim there is no such thing as an accident and are under the delusional idea that life can be risk free, in reality they are wrong. Life is full of risks and if you become a police officer, it stands to reason you accept these risks just the same as if you joined the military. If a police officer is this scared of risks, he should resign and take up knitting. He's clearly not up to the job.

The police have tools specifically designed for tackling people with knifes, not including a taser. Side arm batons are one such weapon. Police officers are supposed to be trained to amongst other things use discretion. That means to pick the appropriate tools and actions for the situation and not simply use the standard stock answer which is rapidly becoming the taser.

The taser has a place and should be used in certain instances, but all evidence shows that police use it constantly for the most mundane arrests and actions. This is not good and should not be tolerated. Because it's seen as so safe, it's use will continue to rise, but there is an increasing body of evidence that whilst safe for many, it can be dangerous and can easily kill.

Anyone who thinks this action by the mounties was correct should roll themselves in bubble wrap, never interact with anyone else and stay inside their homes. To be honest, I'd prefer they did and leave the rest of the world to people who actually understand reasonable force.

P.S.

Before anyone asks. I most definately understand what I'm talking about and don't need that rubbish thrown at me.

Mad Mike

P.S.

If you read canadian websites for their comments, I think you'll find most canadians think this was wrong and are, quite frankly, pretty embarrassed by it.

Most of them agree that if 3 police officers can't disarm an 82-year old man, with a heart condition and a penknife, they really shouldn't be in the job.

God help them if they meet a serious criminal.

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Dangers of an 82-year old man

Glad to see people defending the mounties actions. Shows what a bunch of soft wusses we're breeding. Nobody said life was safe. Some jobs are more dangerous than others as a matter of necessity. Being a police officer is one of these. If you want the safest job in the world, don't become a policeman. Forget the army, air force and navy as well. After all, someone might shoot at you........................

Anyone who really considers that person dangerous (even with a knife) against the people available should lock themselves in a very deep bunker and stay there forever. Life and the world is clearly too dangerous for them. Those of us that accept life and the risks etc. will continue to move the human race forward.

The nurses may well have considered him too dangerous for them, but the police? What on earth are they going to do when faced with someone really dangerous. You know, maybe a 20-year old with a knife? Call in the army I suppose.

"Sorry, we had to carpet bomb the area as there was a 20-year old with a knife. Far too dangerous for our policemen to tackle"!!

It's like something out of Demolition Man where the police can only ask assertively.............................

Next time, tell the mounties to put their handbags down and that'll free up their other hand.............................

Paris as even she could have subdued him.....................albeit probably in a different way!!

Mad Mike

Anonymous Coward

'Oxygen doesn't burn, you numpties.'

Well, apart from your complete lack of perspective about their response, I never suggested the oxygen would burn. So, let's give you some basic chemistry. Oxygen supports combustion. In other words, the more oxygen, the more ferocious the oxidization. Also, items that would not normally burn will if enough oxygen is present. Things like his gown (or whatever he was wearing), bedding etc.etc. Not a flame thrower, but certainly a potential blazing inferno.

I just hope nobody ever catches you holding a knife whilst posing no threat. Presumably, you'll be quite happy to get a good tasering. Even if he wouldn't let go of the knife, they could have simply stayed around and left him. He was hardly going to get out of bed and run around stabbing everyone!! After a short period of time, he'd probably fall asleep and then could simply take it out of this hand.

Those that defend this are as bad as those who issue stupid edicts etc. from behind a desk. And I'm sure if they'd hit his hand with a baton, nobody would be complain. A blow to the immediately dangerous part, just enough to make him drop it. Sounds like a proportionate response to me.

Mad Mike

Bunch of girls

I've never been called a liberal leftie and certainly believe in the rule of law and sensible enforcement, but where do police get off these days? If someone really poses a threat, they should be dealt with as firmly as required to keep people (police included) safe. If someone threatens others with a gun, shoot them etc.

But, how in gods name can a 80ish year old man, in a hospital bed, attached to oxygen etc. be a treat even if a knife is in his hand? At worst, stand off and hit his hand with a broom handle or batton etc. I'm sure the knife will drop quickly enough. Using a taser is just beyond belief.

Also, the RMP need to seriously get some brains. Pepper spray would only contaminate the immediate area, where as using a taser (which could spark) in the prescence of someone on oxygen...............? Idiots.

Personally, I believe all cops with tasers should be given police issue handbags as once a taser is issued, they seem to think every situation calls for its use. Big bunch of girls...........

Hate to see them in a really sticky situation.

Shuttle astronauts: Aliens are definitely out there

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Alien Visitation

If aliens ever land on this rock, they'd better be careful. Any interaction with a member of the police is likely to result in a rapid tasering.

Paris, cos she's tougher than the police these days.

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Simon Pope

'I am dismayed that some readers appear to genuinely believe that scientists have a vested financial interest in pushing climate change and creating a panic. The simple truth is that climate change scientists' most fervent hope is to be wrong about climate change. Unfortunately, climate change science does not stand or fall on Mr Goddard's temperature data sets. The best scientific consensus about climate change has been derived from a large, peer-reviewed, and well-debated set of science. Readers can look at the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC 4th Report for details. Further to that, some important current climate science (that at the time of the compilation of the 4th report was in its early stages from a scientific dilligence perspective) was not included in the IPCC assessment. This later science, taken at a whole, would seem to imply that the IPCC 4th assessment was a very conservative assessment, and that the likelihood that it is much worse is at least as likely. Readers are invited to refer to the bibliography below for an overview of this newer science.'

Scientists hope is that they can continue on living comfortable lives with money from somewhere. That's preferable to being a job nobody wants with no money.

Additionally, if the trend is upwards, what about the ice ages and hot spots throughout history (as in tens of thousands of years). The last ice age? Got colder. Should mankind have fired a few forests? What about the hot spots and cold spots before? Did mankind cause those as well? It seems nature is quite capable of swinging temperatues quite wildly and well beyond our current changes all by itself. So, why is the current change automatically attributed to humans? Just because you can't find a natural answer doesn't automatically make it mankind causing it. That's bad science, unless you're looking for the grants!!

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

m-s-m

'I suppose you're talking about the USA? In the UK scientists are funded by research councils and so this argument is completely false. Also, you may be interested to read into the peer review process...'

The research councils are funded by the government which has a vested interest in people believing in global warming because that enables them to effect change by taxation!! Additionally, it doesn't really matter who supplies the money. If the scientists say there is no global warming/cooling, they get no money. If they say there is global warming/cooling, they'll get money. Simple really. Do the scientists want to live comfortable lives or exist in cardboard city/

Paris, got she's simple too.

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Graham Bartlett

Ah yes, and of course the scietific community is completely free of bias. Let's see now. Who pays their salaries? How do you keep the money coming in for research? Best way, is to create a panic!! So, the people with the largest vested interest in proving mankind is influencing global temperatures (whether up or down) are the scientists!!

That's why there have been opposite panics for many years. Firstly, a new ice age is approaching. When it becomes patently obvious they were talking rubbish and it was simply some natural cycle, they changed it around. Again, the same happened, so they changed it around again. Then again. I'm sure you see the pattern. The only thing that remained constant was the funding from government due to the panic caused by scientists.

It may now be true that global temperatures are rising and it may even be true that humans are causing it. But, the scientific community has called wolf several times before and been wrong, so they're loosing credability!! I'm met a lot of scientists in my time and have used the Paris icon because most scientists know about as much about the real world as Paris does. They live in their own little spheres; especially physicists.

DHS ponders microwave raygun missile defences at airports

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Idiots

Anything that can affect the electronics of an anti-aircraft missile (which is designed to operate in a hostile environment), is going to affect the electronics of a civilian airliner (which is not designed to operate in a hostile environment). Therefore, they had better get the aiming right!! What's the difference between a missile being launched from a high building and the engines of an airliner in heat signature terms?

Also, due to the inverse square law in operation here, the microwave transmitter (weapon) would have to be very powerful to have an adequate range. Therefore, even if the levels were safe at range (unlikely if it's gonna fry electronics), it is very unlikely to be safe at closer ranges. Might cook a couple of people before working it out!!

The Paris icon? Because even Paris couldn't come up with something so stupid.

'Bullying' Aussie high school stops fingerprinting kids

Mad Mike

Fingerprint or Number

The fact that the fingerprint is processed and then stored as a number and therefore is 'safe' is actually a stupid argument. The number produced could actually relate to multiple fingerprints and is simply a way of allowing for a margin of error and to reduce the storage requirements. The number can be reverse engineered to produce a fingerprint. Now, this fingerprint might not be your fingerprint, but that is irrelevant. The fact is that this created fingerprint will process to the number recorded against you and therefore WILL identify itself as you. Whether it actually is your fingerprint or not is totally missing the point.

Therefore, given the numbers, it is possible to create a fingerprint for each person and the only way of knowing if it is really the persons fingerprint or simply one reverse engineered, is to re-fingerprint everyone and compare the two optically.

Ergo. Automatic fingerprinting systems are useless for security and can be simply bypassed using a small amount of knowledge and reverse engineering of the number.

Additionally, in order to make a system practical, the level of accuracy that can be achieved is pretty low. Therefore, getting two people with fingerprints that process to the same number is quite possible, especially when dealing with a large sample e.g. national etc.

Smith says answer to knife crime is through the arch window

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Simple solutions for simple people

Again, the home secretary is showing she is a simpleton. If people want a weapon, they'll always get one. Even if it worked in taking knifes out, they'll simply use something else. You need to take away the want rather than the weapon. It's simply a public relations exercise to try and make out they're doing something and to buy some voter support.

I'm using the Paris icon as Paris is probably the nearest (albeit higher) IQ to Jacqui Smiths and the rest of our government ministers.

Kylie wraps herself round Dalek

Mad Mike

Knobbly

Have you noticed how Daleks are also nobbly!!

I can see the smile on her face now.

Brit office Xmas parties going to the dogs

Mad Mike

@Anonymous Coward

'the third one (who is pretty attractive) is 4 months pregnant...'

Well, the bump shouldn't be too big and impede too much. No chance of accidently getting them pregnant. Sounds like game on to me...................

Is she too stupid to remember your name as well? Perfect!!

Israeli sky-hack switched off Syrian radars countrywide

Mad Mike

By Kwac

'If I sling some poor sod out of their house are the neighbours going to stand by when I start picking fights with them?

Israel was created by a war NOT by the UN. Britain reneged on promises to both Jews and Palestinians then sodded off leaving them to get on with it.'

Unfortunately, not true. The land (original borders) was called Palestine and was a protectorate given to the UK to administer. The Jews carried out a guerilla war against the UK until they pulled out. At this point, it was still the protectorate of Palestine. However, the UN then accepted the creation of a country called Israel. Therefore, the UN did create the country as until the UN agreed it, the country didn't exist, just the protectorate!!

Animal rights activist hit with RIPA key decrypt demand

Mad Mike

@Mr Chris

'Yes, that's of great help to all the people with lung cancer that they developed due to starting smoking in the 50s, 60s and 70s when even doctors were telling you it was healthy.

And what about lung cancer caused by second hand smoke? Or other airborne toxins unrelated to cigarettes? "Smoking related cancers" are the same as certain non-smoking-related lung and throat cancers.

Don't be so simplistic.'

I wasn't trying to be simplistic. I know there's a lot of grey areas. I was simply making a general point that we shouldn't use animals to fix something we bring upon ourselves. As to the 50s, 60s and 70s and what doctors were saying. If anybody seriously believes breathing in large amounts of smoke deliberately is ever going to have anything but a bad effect on their health, they deserve everything they get. I don't care what doctors say. I have never smoked for the simple reason that logic says it is unnecessary and more likely to be harmful than not. Therefore, don't do it. That's not to say I support the Nazi anti-smoking laws now enacted in this country. Personally, I would let people do anything obviously stupid at their risk. I simply wouldn't try curing it.

If someone wants to die doing something stupid, that's their choice. Bring back more Darwin I say.

Mad Mike

Human v Animal

For all of you who have forgotton, man IS an animal. Therefore, why should we not force humans to smoke cigarettes before being killed and cut up? What's the difference? Humans simply believe they are superior than OTHER animals and therefore give themselves special rights they deny the other animals. Is this in anyway logical? Of course not. Unless you put a religious slant on it, we are a product of nature and Darwinism. Natural selection and all that in the same way as every other animal. So, why should we be special?

P.S.

I like a nice bit of dead cow/pig/lamb etc. I eat a lot of meat. Nothing wrong with that, so do tigers etc. The difference is, I eat it because I have to eat, not because I want to do it for no reason. Therefore, in my view, researching on animals is justified where we are trying to stop something we haven't brought upon ourselves. However, when it is self-inflicted, we shouldn't. Therefore, if people want to research on curing smoking related cancers, they shouldn't as rather than fixing the disease, the answer is simply not to smoke and cause it in the first place!!

Mad Mike

Could set an interesting precident

Given the rather lax security of windows and ability of others (over the web for instance) to place files on your hard drive, this legislation could be a bit of an issue. The police could probably claim they have 'cause' to require decryption of any file given any name. Therefore, suppose someone has dropped an encrypted file on your hard drive. How can you comply? In this case, it might well be she has something to hide, but it could happen to anyone. Given that others have access to your hard drive, how can you be required to hand over any encryption pass phrase or whatever they ask for?

Rather seems the legislation is at odds with the technology. Also, it is rather interesting that the police can't crack it!! Given their resources, you would have thought it would be possible.

The broken terror systems that killed de Menezes

Mad Mike

@Anonymous Coward

I completely concur that the person pulling the trigger must ensure they have the legal right to do so. In order to shoot, they must believe they or someone else is in immediate danger and that lethal force is the only option. Given what the shooter was told on this occasion and the circumstance they found themselves in, I believe he did think this. He believed they had a suicide bomber, with bomb who had to be stopped. He and others were in immediate danger from the bomb. The fact he was given incorrect information and therefore his belief is wrong is the fault of those supplying the information.

Yes, nobody can tell him to open fire, but they can affect his beliefs etc. and therefore his likelihood of doing so by what they tell him.

Mad Mike

Who to blame?

Who is to blame for this cock-up?

It appears to me that those on the ground (whether surveillance or whatever) did the best they could. Some ran towards a suicide bomber or stayed close observing at great danger to themselves. Those that opened fire were told beyond doubt he was a suicide bomber and had been given dubious information beforehand about the bombers capability. Given the circumstances and information at their disposal, can you blame them? Whether they were police or special forces etc. is not really that relevant.

To my mind, it looks like the communications were utterly confused and led to this whole incident. The operations rooms manifestly failed in its duty to provide good communications, clear information and timely decisions. Cressida Dick certainly did not make her decisions in good time and appeared ignorant of important information (such as the location of CO19 etc.) at least some of the time. So, for someone to blame, I think we should look no further than the people responsible for the operations room and its activities. Presumably, as the senior officer present, Cressida Dick must take responsibility for this. Her complete inability to make tactical decisions in a timely manner also highlights her.

Additionally, the misinformation initially put out after the operation must also have come or been organised by the operations room. Later press releases would undoubtedly come from the press office etc.etc., but the initial few I suspect not. So, Cressida Dick also presided over false information being fed to the media.

All in all, it rather looks like the people on the ground took a lot of personal risks to try and defend us, but the senior staff and those sitting comfortably in the operations room let them down dreadfully with the consequences we now know. Sir Ian Blairs position and that of a few of his senior officers should be in grave doubt. If he goes, Cressida Dick should also.

Brown reveals road pricing, emissions plans

Mad Mike
Thumb Down

Who care's

All the environmental targets will be signed up to and then promptly ignored. No government or minister ever looks more than 4-5 years in the future. They might well not be around. Long term planning is never done, especially if it involved upsetting people. They also offload lots of unpopular taxes onto local government. e.g. pay as you throw, road pricing etc.etc.

Basically, governments don't care about anything over 5 years away. Take nuclear power. We'll do more as it alllows them to reduce emissions (or show a plan to) whilst the decommissioning angle won't be their problem due to the time lag. No matter what happens, the fallout (pardon the pun) will be someone elses issue.

Met Police guilty in de Menezes case

Mad Mike

Who should take the blame?

Who do people think should take the blame/be prosecuted over this. The person who fired the shots? The people who misidentified him? The people in the control room? The head of operations on that day? The head of the Met?

Macs seized by porn Trojan

Mad Mike

Security quality

Any security breach that relies on the user being an idiot (i.e. entering an administrator password or similar) is not really that clever and says little about the operating system. No operating system, no matter how good or how secure can prevent this. When we see Macs being infected through buffer overflow viruses etc.we'll be able to seperate the men from the boys. As the malware doesn't attempt to do anything like that, I suspect they can't!! Looks at malware that exploits flaws and exploits in the operating system before taking any notice of it.

At the moment, this sort of malware only really exists on Windows. Whether that is because people can't be bothered to write it for other platforms due to uptake, or the other systems are more secure is another matter.

P.S.

I don't have a Mac, but do have Windows and Linux.

Royal Navy presses IT Crowd for nuclear missile 'servers'

Mad Mike

Access

As a responsible employer, presumably the Royal Navy have implemented some software to prevent access to unsuitable websites, such as Websense etc. On attempting to fire the missiles, surely this would therefore come up with 'Inappropriate site blocked - weapons and firearms'?

Chinese lunar orbiter on its way

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Any answers for conspiracy theorists?

That is of course assuming the Chinese probe actually does to the moon. Maybe they'll just create the images and film in the studio? So, who checks the checker?

Police bail OiNK admin after filesharing raid

Mad Mike
Paris Hilton

Legislation?

How on earth do they think they can legislate against this? How do you ban P2P traffic? What an idiot. How do you define P2P anyway? Something gets uploaded and something gets downloaded. Sounds like normal internet traffic anyway!! They can't just ban file sharing, as this would knock out everyone, including legitimate sites. And how are ISPs supposed to stop the file sharing? Start blocking certain ports? They'll just move to others.

What an idiot.

Plan for 20mph urban speed-cam zones touted

Mad Mike

@The Other Steve

I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at your stupidity and perversion of research. Laughable.

'Deaths from air pollution caused by traffic, according to the Lancet are 19,000 per annum, if we believe the NAO figure for economic cost per road death, that's another 50bn quid.'

Now, I'll put this simply. A dealth caused by air pollution is not actually a 'road death'!! A road death is a death caused directly by the road. Perhaps you would like to include heart attacks for pedestrians witnessing a road death whilst you're at it. Also, if you divide £50billion by 19,000 you get £2.63million. Now, I know the government have been pumping money into the NHS at some rate, but £2.63million costs per death? And that's an average!! Anyone who believes that is away with the fairies. Total fantasy. SImple rational thought processes say it can't possibly be that much.

'http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/current/trnprice.htm'

Unbiased? Who was the report produced in association with? AEA Group!! An environmental group!! So much for unbiased!! Just before you go on about it being university reasearch blah di blah, you have to realise that university research normally backs the people that fund it. The reason is simple. University workers need paying as much as anyone else and finding against the people providing the money usually results in no more money!! Additionally, university researchers are well known for jumping on any bandwagon that provides funds. So, no, this is far from independent research.

In short, you have looked up a few articles and papers etc. and taken them pretty much at face value rather than actually assessing them. In doing what you have done, you have fallen for figures that are blatantly and obviously ludicrous and accepted research papers that are biased. Well done!!

Mad Mike

@Chris Roughneen

'Secondly, even if your motorcyclist friends are 'only' achieving 40-45mpg from their machines that is still considerably better than the UK car average of 37mpg - and a bike covering a distance of 25 miles in 30 minutes uses much less fuel than a car taking 60 minutes to cover the same due to it's engine running for half the time..'

Really. What a load of rubbish. If the motorbike is covering the distance in half the time, it must by definition be going twice as fast. Therefore, it will be emitting more per minute!! So, the increase in speed of the bike (which generally means more emissions!!), could actually result in the same or even more emissions!! The above statement alone shows your thinking is completely addled.

'Thirdly, the 'weaving in & out of traffic' you refer to is not actually illegal - it's filtering (if you had once been a rider no doubt you have engaged in this yourself?) and next time you see a Police motorcylist in traffic doing the same perhaps you'd like to take it up with him the same way you seem so eager to take it up with 'normal' riders?'

Whether it is illegal or not, is somewhat irrelevant. It's actually quite dangerous. When motorbikes suddenly appear from nowhere, accidents happen. Weaving in and out of traffic causes a lot of accident. Granted, not normally bad, in that a lot happens at very low speeds, but it does cause a lot. And before people jump on the bandwagon, it's not always the cars fault. When you're waiting in queues and motorbikes suddenly race past inches from your door at relatively high speed (say 20mph when you're stationary), it gives almost no time to react.

'Fourthly, I myself do not accept that bikes are harder to see than any other vulnerable road user'

Well, I'm afraid your in the minority. As the target is smaller, it is by definition harder to see. Also, because of their small size, they are hidden much easier by posts etc. within the car. They are also hidden easier by road signage etc.etc. Anyone who thinks motorbikes are as easy to see as cars really needs adjusting to the real world.

However, having said the above, I do believe that all road users need to be much better educated about road manners, driving etc.etc. You can introduce more laws as much as you like, but it is peoples driving ability (whether car, motorbike, etc.etc.) that causes most of the issues.

Mad Mike

Darwin Award

' What, exactly, do you think the police should be doing to the cyclists without lights, or cycling on the footpath?'

Nothing at all. However, when they get run over and killed, they should be sued for the damage to the car etc.etc. and the car driver should not be prosecuted. Unfortunately, that is not normally true.

P.S.

All crimes should be pursued. The fact we have a useless government who couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery is not our fault.