world gone mad
So, you can't get locked up for violence, but you can for annoying a business?
253 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
The ID card allows travel between EU countries, but if UK was part of the Schengen zone there would not be a need for any documents at all.
So, the ID card covers 27 countries and a few bits and bobs of other countries. A passport covers 193 countries (including the EU.)
If you want to visit DisneyLand:Florida you will need a passport.
"So, you've got a replacement for that passport you inexplicably lost while drinking in Leeds?"
"Yeh, cost a fortune as well. But I got a deal on a passport plus an ID card!"
"Yeh, though the return ticket to Manchester was expensive."
"Why did you need to go to Manchester?"
"For the interview."
"Oh. So you are going to take better care of your passport?"
"Oh yes. And I'll keep the ID card in the passport so I'll always know where it is!"
While there have been full page ads in the Metro free paper and I've seen exactly 1 online ad on a web page, there has been no other visible advertising at all.
OTOH, how difficult is it to work out that the ID card doesn't permit travel to the America, Africa, Australia and other non-european countries so what is the point if one already has a passport?
I remember Maggie Thatcher saying almost exactly the same things.
I feel an Animal Farm quote coming on.
"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
"Besides, images taken by the scanners are not ever saved to any form of permanent medium, so there is no scope for images to be played with in this way."
Sorry, I don't believe you. There are good legal reasons why the images must be retained - such as a dispute between the passenger and the airport about the search.
To be fair, the people running the project have shoe-size IQs and have extreme difficulty remembering to breath when the keeper with the pointed stick takes a tea break.
However, as time has passed, the original idea of a nice clean database containing few if any errors has degenerated to something that will be little better than the passport office or DVLA can provide, using security methods that a child could, and probably will, defeat.
The suggestion of combining passports, driving licenses and id cards into a single document was rejected for no good reason so driving abroad will involve at least three UK documents, each claiming to contain ID info (of course there are other documents that may be required but they aren't issued by uk.gov)
BTW, the 2400 applicants are from just Liverpool and Manchester so far. For some reason MPs have not been asked to sign up, perhaps the results would be embarrassing (and result in expense claims?)
Is it i-slate.com or is-late.com :-)
Apple is in the business of making nice easy things for the computer agnostic majority. If you want an open platform, buy any one of the dozens of other tablets that will appear on the market in the 6 months after Apple announces a tablet computer.
I'm a bit puzzled about all this. Anybody who wanted to travel abroad this season would already have a passport if they followed the standard advice from the passport office. As the passport is far more useful than the ID card (covering all countries, especially the US) why would anybody in the Manchester or Liverpool area spend another £30 for an ID card?
The only thing lacking on the passport is the holders address - but then as nobody can yet verify the address on an ID card, the passport is not at a great disadvantage. Indeed, it is the ID card holders responsibility to keep the address on the card correct, but if it cannot be verified (especially outside the EU), how can it be trusted by a 3rd party.
It's quite simple really. If you have a bit of stand-alone kit with DRM, there is already in that kit all the information you need to break the DRM. This is the reason why DRM gets cracked so quickly. The ONLY protection that exists is "security through obfuscation" and we all know how well that works!
"Identity cards cost £30 and, like a passport, they are valid for 10 years. " says the government propaganda, sorry, web site.
What they don't say is, your data stays in the database even if you don't renew (assuming you still have the option in 10 years.) Also, if your data changes and you don't tell Big Brother, you get a fine.
All in all, it's both cheaper not to get an ID card and there doesn't seem to be any disadvantage to not getting an ID card.
Not long ago, we in Greater Manchester were asked to vote for a "congestion charge" and get new funds for the trams and buses. At the time we were told that there was no "option B", a no vote would lose the funds.
The result of the vote was an overwhelming no.
Yet the money for the tram network extension is still available and work is already started.
I'm sure that there is a transport policy, it's just that nobody knows where they left it.
I may be misunderstanding the article (it is reporting on gov-speak after all) but why are people who pass the CRB check being put on a database? If you fail, you must already be on one of the unperson-lists, but if you pass, you are squeaky clean. As I understand it, CRB checks are not transferable, if you pass for the Scouts you still need a second check to work as a teacher, so recording a successful pass is pointless.
It's just that almost nobody is a kiddy fiddler and if almost everybody is on the good list, there will come a point where all newly detected peodos will have previously passed at least one CRB and the entire system will fall into disrepute (if it hasn't already.)
I can state for certain that exactly zero percent of the Manchester student population carry their passport when going out for a drink. Many of them will carry their Students Union card, but none need a passport. Manchester pubs and clubs have no desire to exclude students for any other reason except poor fashion sense...
It's all very well saying that the accused can go to law, but who can afford that route? This is how the RIAA/MPIAA operate, they accuse and then offer a cheaper option of a "fine". Most people can't afford to go to court and just admit "guilt" to avoid a multi-million dollar judgement.
That ain't justice.
S: (in a slow and somewhat stupid voice) Which charges do you mean then, sir?
O: Well, for instance, this one: loitering with intent to use a pedestrian crossing. Savage, maybe you’re not aware of this, but it is not illegal to use a pedestrian crossing. Neither is smelling of foreign food an offence.
S: You’re sure, sir?
O: Also there is no law against urinating in a public convenience or coughing without due care and attention.
S: If you say so, sir.
O: Yes, I do say so, Savage! Didn’t they teach you anything at training school?
S: I’m sorry, sir.
O: Some of these cases are plain stupid: looking at me in a funny way … Is this some kind of joke, Savage?
S: No, sir.
O: And we have some more here: walking on the cracks in the pavement, walking in a loud shirt in a built-up area during the hours of darkness and walking around with an offensive wife. In short, Savage, in the space of one month you’ve brought 117 ridiculous, trumped-up and ludicrous charges.
You all though that was just a funny sketch from Not the Nine O'Clock News. It turns out to be a remarkable far-sighted prediction of the future.
The BBC is reporting that less than 600 people are in the database. That means, not only has Manchester ignored the extensive (sic) publicity, but not even MPs are signed up.
BTW, the only publicity I've seen was a single, full page ad in the Metro newspaper and a little coverage on the local TV news, where they didn't even give the URL for the web site.
This really feels like a discussion of which slide rule is best. Five years ago, the idea of a stand alone ebook reader might have made sense. Today it doesn't.
Whether or not Apple ever releases a tablet computer, someone will and to all the commentators surprise it will be a success (just like they all got it wrong about netbooks.)
Right now, the only problem is the display but OLED technology is developing fast and low power colour displays will be available soon.
If I'm going to carry something the size of a paperback book, it better do a lot more than just act as an ebook reader.
I wonder if Mandy has actually read the copyright laws? This posting has an associated copyright, but by posting it, I implicitly allow re-distribution. The copyright doesn't disappear. So, who is protecting my rights? I can't afford to wine&dine Mandy on my private motor cruiser while explaining why my copyright needs are important.
Are we getting to a situation where an organisation like the Performing Rights Society gets heavy handed with shops and pubs even when they are playing music from people and groups who are NOT represented by the PRS?
NASA have had the same problem for years when they light up one of their sky rockets. A big hole in the ground and f'ing big water pumps seems to work. Might need a bit of adaptation for a ship...
As for "hard" marines, I doubt they would last a winters day in Newcastle in the national dress of t-shirt and shorts.
17% of 12,000 is... wait for it... 2,040.
About 2,000 people in Gtr. Manchester applied. First we remove one or two for every newspaper, radio and TV station. Next remove a few for every national newspaper, radio and TV station that has staff in the area. Next remove a few for lawyers interested in human rights etc. There is a very large student population in the area (three universities in central Manchester and many more colleges.) At least a few staff and students will be interested in the reality of ID Cards - perhaps there are a few doctoral thesis being written.
So perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 cards to the general public. Not bad given zero advertising and the difficulty of finding the relevant web page.
Total f'ing failure for the government of course.
It's the government that is playing politics, not the scientist. If they had just said, "Thank you for the science.", and left it at that there would not be a problem. But to explicitly state that ecstasy and pot are as bad as actual harmful drugs and change the law to agree with that lie is very wrong.
The minister could easily have said that social factors (The Mail headlines) and politics (voter opinions) were more important than the science and everybody would have just known it was the usual spin.
The Home Office web pages STILL do not have any useful info about the trial in Greater Manchester. The best you can do is "register an interest". However, if you do that, your information is "shared" with a company called "Rufus Leonard" who is apparently some kind of "brand & digital media consultancy".
An interesting security strategy, share personal info with a 3rd party from the very start.
EDS isn't one of the "usual suspects" for nothing.
I was once told by someone involved in such corporate matters that the reason why the usual suspects keep getting these contracts despite prior disasters is that only the biggest companies can afford to bid for the contracts. The process is so complex that a company may end up spending millions just to prepare the bid documents.