Posts by NT

McCain: Keep Shuttle flying, don't trust Russia

responsible foreign policy

First, the situation in Georgia. I'm afraid I just don't understand it - at least, the west's reaction to it. I don't understand why the UN and NATO rush to defend seceding regions in the Balkans (Kosovo); why they defended seceding regions of the USSR (including Georgia); yet now condemn two regions of Georgia whose people, at least as I understand it, largely *do not want to be part of Georgia*. If, as some are suggesting, this is a propaganda lie by Russia, then I'm at a loss to understand the evident frictions between South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia.

I am certainly no fan of Putin or his puppet Medvedev; I'm also no fan of George Bush and I don't like the look of McCain (don't get me started on our own politicians). I don't think brinkmanship is a responsible foreign policy, but I think that's what we're in for. Russia may not have been right to attack Georgia - but if I were the western governments I think I might still choose to be a little less strident in my criticism. Maybe use a few more of these >?< and fewer of these >!<. If nothing else, I'd give suitable consideration to the fact that Russia, while not what it once was, is still enormously powerful, and has powerful friends and some very heavy weapons. A conflict involving the USA and Europe and Russia and China, plus whatever other nations wanted to weigh in, would only resolve in one way: we'd make a desert and call it peace. Now maybe some will whinge that that sounds like appeasement: "why should Russia be allowed to do what it likes just because it's powerful?" Well, the answer is *because* it's powerful. *Precisely* the same principle that the USA uses to justify its various military adventures around the world, and that Britain used before it.

Then there's the question of the usefulness of space research. It's not simply useful, it's essential if our species is to have any really long-term survivability. It infuriates me that so many people seem so totally unable to grasp the precarious nature of our existence. We have been here for an *eye-blink of time*. We are not the be-all and end-all; we are not the axis of the universe. The universe can, and sooner or later will, swat us out of existence.

Frankly I don't care whose flags Earth's spacecraft wear in the future, just as long as there are spacecraft to put them on.

Then there's money. The US national debt is running at $9 trillion at the moment. That's $9 trillion that the USA has spent that it didn't have. A hefty portion of that has come from other countries - including China, one of the countries the west loves to criticise. It might be worth giving that a thought from time to time: the higher the debt climbs, the more power these other countries ultimately have over America. In the unfortunate vernacular of an acquaintance of mine, it might be time for the US to start giving some thought to winding its neck in a little. It's all very well bolshing around the planet as though you own the place - but it becomes a lot less convincing when the stark fact is that the place actually owns you.

As far as the shuttle fleet goes, I'd be the first to say rescue it if I thought it was practical - I love those little ships and I'd hate to see them retired. But retired they will certainly have to be: they're getting old, and the stresses they're expected to go through every time they're launched and recovered are immense. There's only so much beating a vehicle can take before it fails. Two have already been lost. NASA knows that STS can't fly forever. Recertifying them may extend their usable lifespan, but if, gods forbid, another crew is lost on Atlantis or Discovery or Endeavour in the time between recertification and the deployment of Constellation I can only imagine the outcry.

Oh, and Mike Smith? Amen to all that.

Council clamps down on 'man on the street'

@ Adam Williamson

As you said:

"the last time the 'nativity banned for dirty towel-heads!' meme cropped up, it turned out to be an urban myth."

And as I said:

"where these stories are true, rather than being occasional re-emergences of urban mythology"

Maybe I should've said "wherever" rather than "where", because it could've been read as "whereas".

Otherwise I stand by my comments, and my view of the damage that overzealous enforcement of communication standards can cause.

"it's not a case where the word is being used in the sense of 'a person'"

Yes, it is used in *precisely* that sense.

"we don't need to fight sexism any more"

No, if it's all the same to you, I'm going to continue to oppose it as I always do. But I'll direct my efforts to the battles that are worth fighting.

@ AC

"@ NT - I think you have just replaced JonB in my affections..."

Why thank you. I'll read up on JonB's posts to decide whether that's a good thing or not. :o) I'm just annoyed that, having posted early in the morning, I wasn't awake enough to realise that I'd taken out the reference (to 'overfeminists'*) that my asterisked footnote was referring to...

Take it as read that I wasn't objecting to feminism as a campaign for sexual equality - in fact, I'm very fiercely in favour of equality, but I think it works both ways round. I'm not even opposed to diversity training or the idea of paying due regard to people's sensibilities - in fact I'm bang alongside that idea, too.

(But I'm not going to argue the toss with Secretgeek because I've already made my points, and if he sees the situation here as the equivalent of going up to a black guy and calling him a 'coon' then I'd suggest that, just like the council in question, he probably needs to work on his sense of perspective.)

--

* I could've gone for 'uber-', I know, but I was trying for a sense of 'excessive' rather than 'greater'.

(I am ridiculously wordy and am now going to shut the f*** up.)

a shock-horror news item

With due respect to Markie Dussard's very valid point that this entire article is basically a huge troll, I'm going to do my bit for Have Your Say.

By the way, what's the IT ang... oh, forget it.

AC:

"Actually, if one wants to be pedantic about this whole PC nonsense, then we should stop calling them 'women' and refer them as 'men' from now on"

That's not the joke you think it is. In Old English, 'man' meant a human being, not a *male* human being. To distinguish between the sexes in Old English, you would have to have used the sex-specific terms 'wer' for a male, or 'wyf' for a female. We have the words 'werewolf' and 'wife' to remind us of this distinction (strictly speaking, a woman can't be a werewolf because it specifically means a human male who changes into, or has the characteristics of, a wolf. Sorry, Angua).

In the few instances in modern English where the supposedly offensive sequence *does* actually refer to a person, and isn't rather derived from 'manus', meaning 'hand' (manual, manipulate, manage, etc), there is an etymological history for the word that legitimises it for use to refer to human beings in general.

In constructions such as 'manned', meaning 'crewed' or 'staffed', it's arguable whether the term refers to the people doing a job, or to the fact that someone's hand is on the (possibly metaphorical) controls.

Campbell:

"FFS people these phrases have been used for countless years if anyone was offended don't you PC nutters think you'd have heard about it by now?"

The problem is the sacred-cow fallacy that if even one person could potentially be offended by something, then it's universally offensive and should be avoided. It's a very brave person today - especially in councils and other public sector organisations - who'd venture to suggest that maybe, sometimes, it's the *complainant* who's unreasonably oversensitive. Nevertheless, that is sometimes the case.

But the main point here is that this isn't exactly a shock-horror news item, because it's happened so many times before. In fact, I'm surprised the Reg gave it house room (actually, no I'm not: the Reg is a tabloid, after all).

Take comfort, though, in the fact that where these stories are true, rather than being occasional re-emergences of urban mythology, the new policies are usually derided by the public and are swiftly forgotten about.

And finally - Adam Williamson:

"Knee-jerk reactions to anything at all which attempts to address sexism, racism, or any other form of prejudice as "political correctness" are far more damaging in the long run."

I disagree. Bear in mind that when initiatives such as this are rolled out - new policies designed to avoid causing offence - it usually isn't the group supposedly vulnerable to offence that's formulated the new policy.

For example, when councils and educational authorities replace, as they supposedly do from time to time, a certain black sheep with green sheep or rainbow sheep, it's usually *not* because black people have complained. Rather, it's because some self-serving (white) council drone angling for a diversity award has decided to take it upon him- or herself to decide what black people are offended by.

Likewise, on those occasions where nativity plays and other Christmas traditions are discouraged on the grounds that they might offend the Muslims, you can bet it's not a Muslim that's come up with the idea. But you can equally bet that it's Muslims who'll cop the blame and the derision.

And this is why these moves are dangerous: they create resentment between communities and groups of people. People don't like change, as a rule - especially change that's forced on them. If nativity plays are banned in the name of Muslim sensibilities, then people are going to resent Muslims - even though it wasn't their idea. These moves create friction. The friction is the price of change. If the rewards of change are significant enough then they're worth paying that price. But in this case, I very much doubt that enough benefit will be gained to outweigh the loss of credibility with the public.

It's not that people dispute the overall sentiment: they question how and why it's being done in the way it is, and whether this sort of council activity represents efficient and effective government.

--

* By which I mean those women (usually) who do the cause of feminism incalculable damage by carrying it far beyond its intended goals, and ultimately using it as an excuse to indulge their personal misandry.

No snapping: Photographers get collars felt

@ Landscapes and Waterfalls

"I used to love taking pictures of railway stations, early 20th century ones, but the looks and questions, just got too much. I now only take pictures of country landscapes and waterfalls."

While I have to admit railway stations wouldn't be my cup of photographic tea, and you'd far more likely find me snapping landscapes and waterfalls anyway (and good skies - I love good, interesting skies; and forest and woodland*), I think that's a great shame.

Remember, people today are paranoid. That's the *point* of the constant talk about terrorists and paedophiles: keep people frightened, they're easier to control and sell things to. They see someone taking pics, they're naturally going to do what their favourite tabloid tells them, and get worried. They're not going to look at the situation rationally because that's going to involve *independent thought*, and that's scary and confusing.

Personally, I'd keep on doing what I wanted to do, and I'd treat approaches and challenges as an opportunity to share the hobby and maybe try to make people feel a little less jumpy about photographers. You know - my own tiny contribution to undoing some of the damage that our beloved media and politicians are wreaking on the country.

* All right, and aeroplanes, if you must know. :o)

@ kain preacher

"There is a guy in NYC that goes around filming cops and other public officials that park illegal. Sound like if he were to do this in the UK he would be done in."

No, I don't think he would. First, let's bear in mind the number of times people have actually been stopped for taking pictures in the UK. El Reg here would seem to imply that it's happening every two minutes on every street corner. I suspect that, if we assessed it objectively, we might find it's not all that common after all.

Then let's consider the percentage of times that it's been down to a mistake or misjudgement on the part of the officer involved, rather than law or a force policy. I suspect that'll cut the number of truly sinister occasions down even further (unless you automatically categorise an officer's error of judgement as sinister in itself).

And then it's worth paying a visit to YouTube and doing a search on 'UK police' or similar. You'll find a truly massive number of clips, and not all of them present the police in an entirely complimentary light. If the UK police were really that bothered about people videoing or photographing them, don't you imagine they'd be taking steps to suppress such content?

As a matter of fact there are quite a few people who make it their life's crusade to follow police officers around and try to catch them doing something a bit dodgy. It could be argued that these are valiant heroes working tirelessly to keep our police forces honest. Or, it could equally be argued that they're small-minded busybodies fuelled by paranoia or sour grapes (how many of them, I wonder, only embark on their civic-minded campaign after getting ticketed for something?). I suppose it depends on point of view. But whatever your perspective, these people are certainly not doing anything illegal, and to tell you the truth I'm quite dubious about the implication that police officers would accuse them of unlawful activity as a matter of course.

@ andreas koch

Because you've said you've asked a 'geuine question', I'll answer it as such. I suspect we both know it was pretty much rhetorical, though.

"I keep reading the terms 'police officer', 'pcso', and 'parking enforcement officer' in close proximity and it leaves somehow the taste as if they where all the same. Which to my understanding is not so: the 'parking enforcement officer' is a meter maid and the 'pcso' is a playground supervisor. Or am I getting that wrong, (my usual excuse is being kraut and only living here for 2 years...) and these people have actual executive powers?"

A police officer in the UK is someone who is sworn into the police force (or 'service' as it's recently been rebranded) and possess a warrant. Of the three you've mentioned, the police officer has the widest range of powers. Disregarding for a moment the anti-authority slant of El Reg, it's generally accepted in democratic countries that a police officer needs a range of powers in order to carry out their duties (although I'm not making any comment here on the right or wrong of any specific power). Perhaps the most universal of those powers from country to country is that the police officer can, if they suspect someone of an offence and need to investigate it, detain a person and take them into custody while enquiries are made (this assumes the offence carries a power of arrest). Different countries will equip their officers with different powers.

A PCSO is a Police Community Support Officer. They are employees of the police force and have a limited range of powers intended to enable them to deal, usually via fixed penalty tickets or reports, with nuisance and low-grade criminality. I hesitate to use the term 'anti-social behaviour' since, as commented elsewhere, it is worryingly vague. (For example, I don't go out to pubs and clubs very often because I don't really like them: therefore in the strictest sense I am guilty of anti-social behaviour.)

In most force areas a PCSO also has powers of detention, however these are (or should be) strictly time-limited and do not allow the PCSO to remove a person to another place. They are restricted to holding a person until a police officer arrives. This power is widely condemned by liberty activists, although in truth it's not dissimilar to the common public conception of the "citizen's arrest", and most people have always been quite happy to accept that idea. But put the same power (in fact, a more limited version of the same power) in the hands of someone who is, in theory at least, trained and accountable, and somehow that person becomes an evil agent of a totalitarian regime.

As for parking attendants, well, the setup can vary wildly from area to area. For example, where I live there are no more traffic wardens. Parking offences are dealt with by either police officers (who rarely have time, unless you're relying on them not having time), or council parking officers whose power derives from the local authority (and it's worth bearing in mind that it's the local authority, not the police, who decide on speed limits, parking restrictions, double-yellow lines, and so on).

"But then, wasn't there a story about some of these pcso's letting a boy drown in a pond, because they weren't allowed to intervene before a proper pc was there."

Yes, there was a story, and no, that's not quite the case. The PCSOs would have been perfectly entitled to jump in and save the boy - it certainly wasn't a matter of 'not being allowed'. These two didn't do that, and the question was whether they were right to act in the way that they did in the circumstances. The police claim the PCSOs were justified in waiting for assistance; the parents say they weren't. I, however, wasn't there and, to my knowledge, neither were the various tabloids rags who rushed to judgement one way or the other, or the readers who decided their opinion based on what their favoured rag told them to think.

In any event, the case you've highlighted is not a question of PCSOs' powers - it's a question of the decisions, right or wrong, made by two individual PCSOs in one particular incident.

"I am genuinely getting lost here."

No, I don't think you're lost at all. I think you know exactly what your opinion is.

Two Sides to Every Story

I submit these comments knowing full well that it's the deepest and most offensive heresy here on El Reg to extend the Evil Big-Brother Oppressive Police the benefit of any sort of doubt under any circumstances. Since everybody knows they're out to take all the power they can get, and there's not a single solitary one of them that does the job because they genuinely believe they can help protect their society, I accept that I may be branded a government shill and exiled into the darkest reaches. Or maybe they won't even clear moderation, I don't know.

(In the hope of mitigating my crime just a little, I'm also going to offer the fact that, while I wouldn't go so far as to flatter myself with the label of 'photographer', I do own a camera. If it comes down to a conflict between the rights of an innocent photographer to take pics and attempts by the police to stop him/her, I'm on the snapper's side every time. I would, however, be interested to know exactly how frequent these incidents are, and how often they're down to the officer's ignorance - admittedly an issue in itself - rather than sinister political intent.)

Still, all that said...

It's been mentioned that officers are increasingly recording everything they do with uniform-mounted cameras. It's been pointed out that they use cameras at demonstrations to 'wind up protesters'.

It might be worth consideration - and I'm not suggesting that you have to accept it, but just be open-minded enough to consider it - that given the increasing tendency of modern Britain to complain vociferously at absolutely every perceived slight or inconvenience, it could be that the increasing use of cameras by the police is nothing more than a defence mechanism. Police officers have always used their pocket books to record conversations and details of encounters. Recording the entire encounter is simply an extension of the same principle. The advantages are that notation errors are eliminated; the officer can spend more time actually dealing with people rather than peering at a notebook; and the officer has a defence against the inevitable allegation that s/he fabricated or deliberately mis-recorded the evidence in the notebook. It's one thing to claim that an officer made up lies and wrote them in a PNB, but it's another to suggest that the police devoted time and resources to fabricating video evidence.

As far as protests go, I'm not sure which 'side' first came up with the notion of recording everything in order to keep the others in line (or, for preference, to record them stepping out of line), so I don't know whose 'fault' I'd say it all is. Who started it. But it's absolutely for sure that in any given demo there are similar numbers of lenses pointing in both directions. And anyone who implies that protesters don't wield those cameras with every intention of trying to intimidate and antagonise the officers involved has quite clearly never been to a protest. Isn't the purpose of the cameras to record police misbehaviour? And what if there isn't any misbehaviour? Isn't that pretty frustrating? Still, when officers know they're being recorded, but know they don't have any way of ensuring the evidential continuity of any tape, it makes sense for them to record events themselves so they can provide their own evidence if need be.

Yes, there are a lot of problems in law and privacy and surveillance at the moment. Most of the problems of this sort (photographers being stopped) stem from the fact that the police are constantly being bombarded with new laws, new initiatives, new operations, all in the name of protecting the people from terrorism and the like. Most officers are simply doing a job; a job they probably used to believe in when they started out, poor saps. Many of them, as much as we might expect them to be perfect machines, have trouble interpreting the masses of new procedures that're being laid on them. And yes, there *are* some arseholes who simply love the power kick of being in a uniform - but the question is whether you're going to assume that they're *all* like that based on anecdotal evidence or the odd personal experience.

And yes, too, there are similar arseholes in authority (I'm looking at you, ACPO), who seem dedicated to acquiring extensive powers that wouldn't be needed or justifiable if they'd only manage basic policing properly.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that, by and large, coppers are people. They don't really want the hassle - they certainly don't want the paperwork - of arresting someone for taking bloody pictures. My advice would be to read up on the law from these links that're being posted, and have it to hand in case you ever end up in this situation. But before you trot it out and chuck it in the officer's face like some supercilious armchair lawyer, why not just *talk* to them? Why not have a chat, and see what was on their mind that led them to speak to you in the first place? And if they persist, then by all means reach for your law.

Obviously, if you prefer to prejudge the lot of them and assume they're all dastardly Orwellian automatons, then go to it; but don't expect the most productive or satisfactory outcome if you charge in guns blazing right from the off.

Mine's the one with 'Pariah' written on the back...

@ John Ozimek

Oh, and one more thing (if they've published my last, that is; otherwise this is just 'one thing'):

"Mr Carter was abused, had his camera knocked to the ground, arrested, bundled into the van and finally held in police cells for five hours."

What was Mr Carter doing while the police were arresting his camera, bundling it into a van and holding it in a cell for five hours?

Winehouse jibe wins Fringe's funniest gag

@ GrammarNazi

"Tell me the correct spelling of the Bard of Avon's name, for example."

There simply isn't one, because during Shakespeare's time - and up until quite recently - there weren't really any standardised spellings in English. In Shakespeare's case there is a conventional spelling (see left); but not a 'correct' one, nor even a single one that he used for himself.

"Overall this is a good thing I feel and perhaps I should have qualified my original 'wanker' statement a bit better. People who correct others for using 'octopuses', 'stadiums', 'formulas', etc are the wankers."

Or maybe nobody's the 'wanker', as such, but just people with differing views on something that doesn't always have a straightforward right or wrong answer.

@ GrammarNazi

"If you want to use Latin and Greek plurals go and speak Latin and Greek. If you use Latin plurals in an English sentence you are a pretentious wanker."

In some cases, but by no means in all. It's always difficult to apply sweeping decrees like that to the entire language. The '-ae' plurals are a good example: standard English usage has 'formulae' as the correct plural of 'formula'. Astronomers aren't being pretentious when they refer to 'nebulae'. That's the correct English plural form of 'nebula'.

Sure, there are many words whose 'original' plural forms are now discarded. We don't hold sports events in stadia, we hold them in stadiums. Despite the insistence of some purists, 'data' refers to a single piece of information or a whole bundle. But plurals are funny things anyway: one goose, many geese; one mongoose, many mongooses.

And as for the hippopotamus, well, to my knowledge 'hippopotami' and 'hippopotamuses' are both recognised as correct in English, although 'hippopotamuses' is considered preferable by most usage authorities.

It's generally better not to get too hot under the collar about this sort of question, because sometimes there isn't a totally clear-cut answer.

Not really a joke at all

I agree with Sarah. The Amy joke just isn't. There's a clear difference between humour (and isn't the Fringe supposedly the place for *clever* humour, and Dave the 'home of witty banter'?) and simple malice. If Zoe Lyons is the best comedy the Fringe has to offer, and if that's a representative sample of her material, then things aren't looking good for the laugh-making industry.

As far as the rest are concerned, again, #2 was nothing more than catty sniping. The hippo one, yes, I liked that. Tim Vine's Velcro comment was worth a chuckle; Joan Rivers is just hugely irritating (subjective, I know); and Jeff Kreisler: c'mon - George Bush is an even easier target than Amy. Talk about a no-brainer.

Incidentally, I don't particularly rate Winehouse as a singer, either, so this isn't from loyalty to a favourite artist. Actually she strikes me as a total wreck - but in any case that's a sad thing, not comedy material.

Cops cuff anti-drug ninja vigilantes

There's no icon for this level of pedantry, but...

@ Andy Barber:

"Commas can't be used before "and". This be because "and" already is a comma. Don't get me stared on starting sentences beginning with "And!" [...] Mine has I heart Lynn Truss on the back."

I'm sure Lynn Truss, knowing a thing or two about grammar, would be well aware that there's actually no rule against starting a sentence with 'and' or 'but'. And yes, commas can certainly be used before 'and' - although commas should always be used with caution. They're useful, but they can get unruly if they're not kept under proper control.

@ Sillyfellow

"the fact remains that they, along with more and more people, were doing this because the police would not. nuff said."

The trouble is that that's *not* a fact. What that is is your assessment of the incident based on the report as presented by The Register. Which may or may not be Fair And Balanced (tm). At best, it may be their own rationalisation for what they were doing - but even then, it's not a 'fact' until we know what action the police had taken or were intending to take against the dealers, and how that compared against the action available to them. Your assessment, I'm guessing, is based more on your own negative experience than on your knowledge of the case in point.

(Incidentally, I notice your invocation of the infamous "I Pay My Taxes" there. As someone who works in the public sector (yes, I know: boo, hiss, etc) I hear this a large number of times every day; invariably from people who're unhappy that they're not being afforded the special treatment they've been conditioned to expect. Most of them either don't realise or don't care that my colleagues and I - plus most of the other residents of the area - also Pay Their Taxes.)

It may indeed be that the police in this case were not doing what they should've been doing. Or it may be that they were doing exactly what they should've been doing, but that these two guys were impatient and deluded as to their own prowess as warriors. We just don't know. What we do know is that they were arrested for committing an offence. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that someone else was doing something wrong somewhere else in the neighbourhood doesn't usually make for a valid defence in law.

@ Damir Colak:

"unlike the UK subjects that are, well, subjected to their governments will."

Just a small point: British citizens in general haven't been 'subjects' since the British Nationality Act 1981. Only a very small number of people with a very specific status continue to be recognised as 'subjects', and there will be no more after them.

As to whether we're subject to the government's will, well, everyone is, to some extent. The big question here is to what degree, relative to other countries, and whether the level of control is justified.

@ Jon

"All gas stations are full service by law for "safety and insurance purposes." New Jersey is a little piece of the UK ('nanny state') in the USA..."

And yet, strangely, here in the very nanny state UK of which you so knowledgeably speak, we're invariably expected to pump our own gas. I haven't seen an attended petrol station in a great many years.

So how do we account for this? Could it be that this particular example of nannying is in fact New Jersey's very own brand, and that in fact, your reference to the UK was for no particular reason after all?

Bush makes last-minute grab for civil liberties

Andus and Tom

@ Andus McCoatover

"Sorry, missed the fact that Facebook and YouTube need, er, the internet. Forgot the tinfoil."

Firstly, that was me, not amanfromMars. However, because of a lack of pronouns in your sentence, I'm not sure whether you're saying *you* missed that fact, or that you think *I* did.

If the latter (and only if), no I didn't. I meant - and I may not have been clear - that the average net user isn't going to pay much attention to the sort of exchange that amanfromMars spoke of, since they're plenty busy with their daily distractions, like Facebook; and therefore the Internet won't have to be restricted or shut down because it's no threat. If such people *did* all suddenly decide to look up from doling out their personal information at the CIA's social-networking trough, or happy-slapping passers-by for teh lulz on YouTube, then there might be a bit more of a problem for the Powers That Be.

@ Tom

"Why should anyone give a crap that isn't doing things they shouldn't."

If you've managed to miss the flood of replies to that very question offered in the comments for every single privacy-related article on this site, and others, then there's really no hope for you.

@ Eugene Goodrich

Argh.

I really, honestly think that the word 'literally' ought to be rejected outright by anyone hoping to be taken seriously on anything.

How on *Earth* have people managed to take a word that so definitely carries a meaning of 'true exactly as stated' and made it mean precisely the opposite?

@ amanfromMars

Every now and then, I actually understand the occasional fragment of one of your posts. In this case:

"And it is simply complex folk like you and me who idly chat and exchange simply complex views on the Internet that they cannot stop"

You're very wrong, though. The Internet isn't some independent global Freedom Network Of The People. It's owned and run, lock stock and barrel, by the US Government and a few major corporations. If it was ever considered to be a serious enough threat -rather than the fantastic bread-and-circuses distraction it's been so far - it'd be gone.

But I don't think we've much to worry about on that score. The Internet might carry a few defiant messages to and fro - but they're a tiny drop in the ocean of millions of people broadcasting excited news of every fart and piece of navel fluff. Most of the ones that do get noticed can be safely written off as the rambling of conspiracy theory nutcases. After all, what's the average Net user going to care about the obsessions of a bunch of tinfoil hat merchants, as long as eBay and Facebook and YouTube still work?

YouTube pros cash in on deaths with fake vids

Ambivalent

I'm always in two minds on YouTube. I've seen incredibly artistic and creative videos on there, which of course was what it was intended for, and in that regard it's a positive and beneficial service. I suppose if you think there's merit in 'citizen journalism' then it's probably an effective tool in that way, too.

The problem I have is that YouTube has contributed enormously to the tendency of people to revel in the misfortunes of others - and in some cases to cause the misfortunes of others (happy-slapping and cyber-bullying spring to mind as fairly modern phenomena whose growth has been greatly assisted by YouTube).

Maybe I'm simply old-fashioned, but if I'm being told about an explosion, well, I don't need to see it in graphic detail. I can imagine what it looked like, thanks. I don't need to be taken step-by-step through the wreckage of a crashed aircraft, scrutinising every piece of personal property, and being told in breathless, dramatic terms exactly how the passengers would have been feeling in their last moments. Just tell me what happened, did anyone survive, and whether we know what caused it.

But that's not just citizen journalists: professional reporters are turning themselves proudly into ham actors. And now that the news companies can rely on citizens to do their jobs for them for nothing - and the citizens seem happy to oblige for the promise of a few seconds' fame - perhaps it's only to be expected that the 'user-generated content' is going to be flashy and sensationalist: after all, any schmuck with a video phone and a net connection can compete in this market.

But on balance I'd have to agree in large part with the others: this sort of thing is to be expected on YouTube - people produce and search for this kind of video for *entertainment*, not for the sake of accurate reporting. To the Web 2.0 generation, reality and Hollywood are pretty much interchangeable.

UK.gov to spend hundreds of millions on snooping silo

All that money...

... and an Olympic games to pay for in four years. (Does anyone *really* think that's going to be anything other than a massive national humiliation? The dying of the last ember of our global credibility...)

The innocent have everything to fear. What bothers me is what happens when these clowns get voted in again - remember, half the electorate probably isn't aware of any of this, and the ones that are probably read The Mail and think it'd be a great idea.

I know we all hate Europe and its supposedly evil tentacles trying to take over the country - but they were the voice of reason over Phorm...

US judge says University can ignore Christian course credits

@ Mark and adnim

@ Mark

You said: "christian nutjobs (rather like yourself)"

As I read that remark, you've made my point for me exactly. I want to be clear: my complaint is NOT that people are attacking religion per se - despite one of the favourite claims of Dawkins et al, I don't believe my religion should be proof against criticism. In fact, valid criticism exercises the mind and is a positive thing. What I object to is *invalid* criticism. Attack my religion for what it is, by all means (and note I haven't told you, primarily because I don't believe you're obliged to share it - again despite certain assumptions, religion doesn't automatically demand proselytisation). Attack me for what I believe, if you wish to attack me.

I quite clearly said in my original comment that I am NOT Christian - and yet here you are with "christian nutjobs (rather like yourself)". Some people in defending religion argue that atheism is a religion in itself. It's not. I know that. But certainly, some people are fanatically opposed to religion is precisely the same blind, narrow-minded way that *some* others fanatically follow a faith. When these supposedly more sophisticated minds attack something without knowing, and often without apparently caring, what they're attacking and why, then of course I question the intelligence and the rationality that they claim.

I'm willing to be corrected if you'd like to tell me that you meant something else by "christian nutjobs (rather like yourself)" - but as it is it looks pretty clear. To you, 'religion' does indeed equal 'Christianity'.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not Muslim either, but in principle I've no problem with someone criticising Islam, and I'm sure most Muslims wouldn't have either - provided, again, that the criticism was valid and not just an indiscriminate blaze about the evils of 'religion'.

@ adnim

You said: "Teaching children about all religions and faith on an equal footing, parents telling their children 'This is what we believe, you are welcome to come to church/synagogue/mosque with us should you wish, you will not be chastised if you don't. We have no proof that what we believe is fact, you are free to choose your own path' is not abuse [...] If you cannot see this then all I have to say is the indoctrination and conditioning you may well have received as a child had the effect that those who raised you desired."

I can see it. And as you describe your attitude here, I've no objection to it at all. As you described it before - "religious indoctrination IS child abuse, and I believe this to be fact" - I wasn't at all sure that you could. 'Indoctrination' is a weighted term - very subjective, and very often used by those opposed to religion to describe exactly the sort of process you now define as acceptable. So I'm glad you've been willing to clarify that.

I repeat: in general I have no objection to the criticism of religion as a whole or individual religions. What I do object to are the assumptions so often made that 1) religion equals superstitious stupidity; 2) religion is evil; 3) that religion as a concept is broadly equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity; 4) that atheists are by definition more intelligent than religious people; 5) that scientific endeavour invariably leads to atheism; and 6) that religion makes a person opposed to science. Together with the strong implication that humanity would be living in peace but for religion (a common theme running through much anti-religious rhetoric), these are *all tenets of faith*. By which I mean that they are all assumptions adopted on the basis of individual conviction and without empirical evidence to support them. All these assumptions can be found in The God Delusion, and all of them are regularly preached by those who ape the author of that book.

It's not atheism that I object to, and it's certainly not science or the scientific method. What I object to (from religious people and atheists) is hostility based on blind faith and prejudice.

'Christianity' Does Not Equate To 'Religion'

It's like flicking a light switch. Give a mention to Christianity in an article, and out trot all the Dawkins wannabes, rattling off the usual repertoire of oh-so-intellectual derision of the religious. And not one of them - just as in the case of Dawkins himself - bothers to analyse their own complaints before making them.

Gordon Pryra: straight in there with, "anyone who believes in a deity is suspect". Suspected of *what*? Lack of intelligence? Lack of scientific objectivity? Lack of education? So often these assumptions are rolled out - yet the number of scientists professing one religion or another is ample refutation for that idea. Even Dawkins couldn't make those charges stick, try as he might. I wonder if the truth is more likely that religious people simply annoy you? And perhaps that, in turn, is because you can't be bothered to differentiate between the intolerant fundamentalists and the vast majority of the world's religious people who simply believe something you don't?

Paul Gray: As a 'religious type' I still can't answer the first question you asked - about Adam and Eve - because it relates to a religion I don't follow; and even if I did, it'd require that I took a fairly literal view of that religion's holy book - an interpretation that relatively few of its followers adhere to. In answer to your second question - about how many religious people would take their sick child to a doctor - I couldn't possibly say. But I'd venture the number would be pretty high. I know I certainly would. As for whether going to a doctor is a violation of some supreme being's Divine Plan, I'd wonder why you suppose that doctors are excluded from having a place in that Plan.

Charlie Clark and others: I assume that your objection to the fact that this case saw a courtroom at all stands only while you disagree with the appellants' point of view. Presumably you'd be similarly outraged if you made a claim to the court and had it rebuffed out of hand because your viewpoint was unpopular? Are religious people so evil that they must be denied the right to legal recourse in the democratic USA?

Dapprman: Well done to you, sir, for being the first person I've seen in a *long* while to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster for the purpose it was created for. Namely an argument of reductio ad absurdum challenging the notion that literalist Christianity alone amongst religions should be given attention as an 'alternative' to proper science. Unfortunately, more often than not the FSM is trotted out merely as derisive mockery of religion in general - a use which seriously diminishes its impact.

Adnim: the truth is that not only is this "think of the children" argument against religious 'indoctrination' rather facile, but it also waters down the meaning of the term 'child abuse'. If a supposedly rational person feels so appalled at the idea of a parent teaching their child according to their own conscience, then surely the only moral alternative is to make all children wards of state at birth until adulthood. After all, such people, being generally superior, could presumably be trusted not to allow their *own* beliefs and opinions not to influence the child in any way at all.

D.M.: "Ban all religions". It's been tried. And each time, the attempt to dictate what people can believe and what they can't has created a somewhat less-than-utopian society. And again, I note you say "all religion". With what justification do you seek to remove humanity's right to free belief?

Anonymous Coward: "Any form of religion should be confined to *church*"? Very telling, that - and serves to make my point. What place does a non-Christian religion have in a church? Do you know that 'Christianity' and 'religion' are not synonymous? And what was that? "Religion as [sic] caused only pain and suffering since the down [sic] of man"? You could argue far more safely that religion *has caused* pain and suffering than you can that it's caused nothing but. Even then, the truth is that it's usually the misapplication of religious principles that result in pain and suffering. For example, Jesus teaches Christians to be tolerant and humble - yet when they're *not* tolerant and humble, their religion still gets the blame. And whatever else it's done, religion has also inspired great works and wonders throughout history. Of course, whether you recognise any value in such things, or even acknowledge their reality, is up to you.

As you can probably tell, I'm a religious person. I'm not a Christian. More specifically still, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian who considers the Bible literal truth in its entirety. But, to listen to all these knee-jerk reactions above, surely just being religious means I must dispute the court's finding here?

Well, as it is, I welcome the decision. Contrary though it might be to cherished prejudices, I have a lot of time for science and scientists. Incidentally, I also know that the vast majority of Christians would themselves prefer to keep Bible literalism out of classrooms and colleges, because most Christians *don't* view the Bible (at least in its entirety) as literal truth. For them, it might well *contain* truth - but then, I'd say so do many works of literature, whether recording historical fact or not.

Had the critics on this page stuck to criticising the religion in question - or better yet, the *specific people* in question - I'd have had no issue with any of them. As it is, the criticism is less about opposing the evils of religion than it is about self-indulgence. It's a way to feel superior - a motive that, interestingly, also drives many of those prone to trying to force their religious beliefs on others.

Wind farm wound down on air traffic fears

@ RRRoamer

"Personally, I would MUCH rather see a GW class nuclear plant out there instead of that wind farm."

Personally, I can't say I'd be a great deal happier with a landscape covered in nuclear plant than with one covered in wind turbines. You, though, would "MUCH rather" a nuke plant than a wind farm. So if aesthetics is the only issue here - as suggested by the bulk of your post, because you didn't mention any other factors - then what,I wonder, leads you to prefer one eyesore over another?

Abbreviations and Sarcasm

People have already addressed the radar concerns pretty well (AC's 'Radar theory' - good post, thanks). So I'll just answer one of the other questions raised:

Angus - it's 'radar'. Acronyms and abbreviations that are treated as actual words in common use - laser and sonar are other examples - don't need to be capitalised. In cases of the abbreviation being a proprietary name, say of a specific organisation, then you can capitalise the first letter. This is why the BBC usually refer to Nasa and Nato (although with those two I think they look better capitalised in full).

I'm usually all for the Reg's entertaining subtitles - but can I ask why the apparent sarcasm in this one? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it, but - "nothing must interfere with Heathrow"? Gives Heathrow that evil-all-controlling-corporation spin, don't you think? Sounds as though you think it unreasonable that air traffic be kept as safe as possible around the country's busiest airport in the country's most populated area.

Surfing Google may be harmful to your security

Crush all opposition

Look, the fact is that Google started out a small, uniquely effective search engine. Because they were effective, and did the job better than any other search engine, they turned into a mighty corporate powerhouse. Mighty corporate powerhouses want more money. That's to say, however much money they've got, they want more. It's their purpose. Looking after the customer and providing a reliable service might have got them where they are, but when a company is the size of Google, and is trying as hard as Google is to crush all opposition, those necessities become millstones. Expensive millstones.

People still seem to see Google as this brave-little-firm-that-could, and they play on the image of being the Little, Friendly, Local Guys. The truth is that they left all that behind years ago when they started making real money. Google has become a juggernaut and it's not going to stop - and your security is only a concern as far as it affects Google's ability to make money. Even then, merely searching on Google doesn't cost you anything, so aside some bizarre workings of the peculiar Internet economy (where I know money can appear, move, and disappear like virtual particles in physics) that won't make Google much money. They've got to find other ways of making you profitable - and don't they just.

I'm as guilty as anyone. I fell out with Google when they bought the Deja Usenet archives, and again when they subjugated Blogger. But I still use them, because unfortunately they are the best search engine. But given the storm of cookies I'm subjected to by their main site, I'm starting to ask myself if the risks are worth the benefits.

Paris Hilton - the compromised candidate

@ Trevour Crow

I think it was a joke, wasn't it?

I mean, I may be wrong, but...

Kudos

@ Pete ("Paris Hilton... why?"): It's a matter of individual preference, as always. There's no reason to try to explain it. Just know you're not alone. I won't say the girl's ugly, by any stretch of the imagination, but she's certainly not the sort of woman I'd get excited about in *that* way. I've got to take issue with the AC "Solidarity with Pete!!!!" though: "braindead, stick thin bimdo, with all the charm and sophistication of a rotten spud"? I take it you know her personally, to be able to judge her so harshly? Or are you just accepting what you're told by the glossy sleb mags?

@ Norman Wanzer: 'Compromise' - or to put it another way, collaboration - between the parties seems to characterise both American and British politics at the moment - to the extent (at least here in Britain) that the three main parties have little to differentiate between them. Small wonder that the smaller, loonier parties like the BNP (neo-Nazis) are starting to gain ground with a politically disillusioned electorate. The big parties are inconstant - they spend all their time maneouvring for short-term vote-grabbing that they don't have any interest in actual policy and the country goes to Hell in the meantime. I suppose it's only natural that people turn to parties that have conviction (in the case of the BNP quite a few convictions), even if they're convinced of fairly unpleasant or impractical things.

(Well, if you can /rant, so can I!)

@ Mark: It's "goes like a privy door when the plague's in town". No bang and no shithouse.

Otherwise, kudos to Paris for this response - it was spot-on. Creative, funny, imaginative and intelligent; and she's obviously perfectly capable of sending herself up and playing on her media image. As Steve Gooberman-Hill points out, for all the flak she takes - not least from El Reg readers - as a supposedly ditzy celeb she's a far cry from the more distressing examples like the Winehouses of the world (although I'm basing that solely on their media personas - I don't know these people as individuals). Although I'm not convinced you need to look all the way back to Caesar to find similar examples...!

Kaminsky (finally) reveals gaping hole in internet

@ JonB

The English dictionaries know that their purpose is to record and define English 'as it is spoke'. It's not their job to arbitrate what's acceptable English or not; although the braver ones will offer guidance on common usage.

So if people are starting to use stupid words like 'impactful' - or any of the other ludicrous constructions so beloved of management types - the dictionaries are going to start recording those terms.

The trouble is that a lot of people don't understand that function of dictionaries, and have the idea that they *are* there to prescribe how the language should be used. If it's in the dictionary, they argue, then it's good English. They're putting the cart before the horse, you might say. They assume that the presence of a word in the dictionary is what causes people to use it, rather than the other way round.

Meh. It's always happened: people who're trying to make themselves indispensable and important invent arcane language to try to mystify everyone else. It's just they have the Mighty Interweb now, so they can mystify the whole damn planet in a sparkle.

Hard 'core'? Birmingham City Council's net filtering

@ Nothing as dangerous to moral fibre as atheism

"as A result I got to go through bluecoat's categorisation system, and yes it put atheism in with witchcraft black magic and the occult. I pointed the contaradictory nature of this out to people but nothing happened.

I can only assume Bluecoat is suffering from Yanqui relegionist bias."

Like, for example, the sort of bias that thinks a search on "atheism" is somehow less 'about religion' than a search on "Christianity" or "Wicca" would be?

If you're at work, then the question is whether you should be doing Internet searches for such topics on work's machines. If you're a journalist, a theologian or an anti-religion campaign organiser, then there'd be reason to be looking at such content. If your company - as in the case of mine - maintains a reasonably liberal policy, then there's no reason why you can't, provided you're doing the job they pay you to do. If, however, your company - for whatever reason they like - does not permit you to carry on such searches or read such content while you're at work, then yes: 'atheism' must by definition be included in any category that includes the names of any number of religious beliefs. Permitting searches on atheism whilst prohibiting searches on religions would be discriminatory.

"I am an atheist" is, unavoidably, a statement of position with regard to religion. (Before you flame, consider whether you believe that to be the same as "a statement of religious belief".)

@ fixit_f

"Erm, public servants pay tax too?"

Don't waste your breath/wear down your keys with that one. It's somewhat off-topic, I know, but as a public sector worker, I could retire if I was getting 5p for every time I heard "I pay your wages". The implication seems to be that this means I'm personally responsible to that single individual and therefore must do as they demand, and offer them preferential treatment I wouldn't/couldn't offer everyone else.

There are various responses. The individual in question pays a minuscule amount towards my wages. Everyone who pays taxes pays our wages, and therefore has an equal claim on our attention - which rules out the preferential treatment usually being demanded. And of course, the fact that we pay our own wages could throw the whole thing into utter confusion.

Still, it's gratifying to know that there's at least one person who recognises the fact.

At the risk of sounding like an echo...

Yes, I agree with other commenters: it certainly is the employer's business.

I'm fortunate to work for an organisation that has a pleasantly relaxed Internet use policy (at the moment - although it's only a matter of time until some fool abuses it and they tighten it up). I don't think any of the restrictions on us are unreasonable. We can't view porn; we can't access online gambling sites; Facebook and MySpace and such garbage are blocked (no loss there). Sites about gaming are predominantly barred - although as a Flight Sim enthusiast I was happy to find that I can access articles and editorials on the various sim sites. We can't download files or install anything without authorisation... Some blogs are barred, though not all. Religious or spiritual sites aren't blocked (I can access Witchvox, for example), but religious hate sites presumably would be.

None of this is at all unfair. We are, after all, there to work - but if we happen to clear the workload we're considered to be on downtime, provided we're ready to start up again when more work comes in.

But yes, it's certainly the business of a company or organisation what its machines are being used for. Remember that gizmo a while back that identified all the Wikipedia edits being made from computers at the CIA and the Vatican? And how we all laughed at the various Shadowy Conspirators being caught out making politically contentious changes? That the edits were probably made by individual employees in their own downtime (and, knowing the standards for Wikipedia, likely reflecting their own personal opinions) didn't stop people from assuming they were all officially sanctioned, did it? So yes, given that most big firms will have fixed IPs and so on, and since everything we do online is recorded and can - given the will - be traced, it's only fair that the employers have control over what their machines are used for and what the users do.

Jobs in 'Apple not perfect' shock

@Philip ("don't feed the Pavlovians")

"...*fanboi* accusations at Mac users every time there's an article with the slightest whiff of Macintosh content - when it seems to me that they're the hysterical ones. Oh well."

You don't think there's something slightly ironic about your obvious strength of feeling while you're holding forth about the others being hysterical? "They started it" and "no, *you* are" really belong in the school playground along with the words "fanboi" and "hater". Aren't we supposed to be intelligent professionals, with jobs and lives and stuff?

Seriously, guys - the whole Mac-vs-PC thing is worn out. Over years of repetition it's cycled itself out of any kind of importance. It's disappeared up its own arse. Nobody gives a toss any more. Leastways (more accurately), there's no rational reason why any half-sensible person *should* give a toss. Pick a platform, any platform. Whichever one does best what you want it to do. This is just like many other choices we have to make in life. The only difference is that for some reason this particular choice leads us to anger and paranoia. I'm not going to bother appealing for everyone to Just Get Along - but could we at least manage to get some sort of a grip on reality?

Late-breaking April Fool prangs snoozing Guardianista

No time for April Fool's

I think it's a stupid, pointless tradition and I agree with Hugo. It's basically just a weak excuse for lying. Maybe occasionally something'll come up that makes me smile or think "that was quite clever", but most April Fool's stunts are feeble and irrelevant. I'm sure I fall for as many as I see through, but in either case I'm always left wondering just what the purpose of the exercise was.

Cuil confesses 'serious file corruption'

In certain areas...

... of the UK Midlands, 'cool' is in any case pronounced 'coo-il', or more often 'coo-ul'. And usually used every three or four words, in between likes.

Inquirer celebrates spammer murder-suicide

Motivations?

The only thing that's happening here is that the Inquirer is getting free publicity. Which is exactly WHY such cheap rags (computerised or not) engage in these calculated 'errors of judgement' - and then bask in the furore afterwards while everyone throws their name around, click to see what all the fuss is about, write in to express their disgust, and so on.

Divorce for shouty YouTube wife

@ Sarah (and Steve)

Sarah, obviously you're entitled to dictate how your own name's spelt. No question there.

But Steve's right about 'gender'. Although, Steve, to be fair, as wrong usages go, this is a pretty well-established one. Sarah's easily got convention on her side. Gender as a synonym for sex is, sadly, pretty firmly dug in by now: the Online Etymology Dictionary dates that usage to 1963.

I'm with you, brother pedant - but we're probably going to have to accept we're not going to get many converts on this one... :o)

Baptist church in assault rifle giveaway

@ Jack Burrows: Not Trying Too Hard, Though...

<< As a proud legally gun toting Texas >>

'Texan', I presume you meant. Or maybe you meant you were a gun, and you were toting Texas? But then the 'legally' gives us a problem... I'll go with 'Texan'.

<< First allow me to clarify a few items for our brothers and sisters on the other side of the pond. >>

Please do. We're always happy to be corrected by 'higher forms of American'.

<< First, our Constitution guarantees those of us in the U.S. the right to keep and bear arms and clearly states that the government cannot restrict said right. >>

Yes, we know.

<< ...our Founding Fathers (treasonous rebels to you Brits) >>

No, not *us* Brits. Maybe the Brits in the 18th Century (back when the treasonous rebels considered themselves Brits, too - you do know Paul Revere never said "the British are coming", don't you?)...

But not us. Believe it or not, by 2008 most of us have pretty much come to terms with the fact that USA is now a country in its own right. The ones who haven't are imperialist throwbacks. I think it's fair to say that most Americans have a grip on the modern situation too. Not all, apparently, but most.

<< This right was important enough to them to ensure that, if necessary, the people would have the means to revolt against the government >>

Aye. Dread to think what sort of government you think would warrant that, though, since the current shower apparently don't.

<< Your statement is a simple illustration of the British mentality that the U.S. needs to come to your aid when the chips are down. >>

The US *needs* to do nothing, and I don't think the British expect anything of the sort. I could go down the line of asking you to name the countries that stood by you (at least, whose politicians stood by you) when you decided to go conquer Iraq. I know a lot of Americans - the higher form, usually - like to think of the US as being above global affairs. They're the sort of people who make big noise about how they don't care what other countries think. Maybe they don't - but some of them seem to put a great deal of energy into making sure everyone knows it...

The thing is - and since I'm a Brit you can take my word for this - empires rise and fall. When our empire fragmented, we ended up in a reasonably good position. We still had - and still have - fairly good relations with most of our former territories. Sure, there's a bit of rivalry and even a little resentment in some quarters even now - but by and large we get on pretty well. The existence of the Commonwealth is testament to that.

The USA might not need anyone right now. You might be above the rest of us. You're rich. You're powerful. The world looks up to you. No-one's the Boss Of You, we know. But things change. And it might be worth considering an insurance policy. If the Sun does ever set on the American Empire, you might be thankful that you kept a few people on side.

<< A few of my favorite quotes from history: >>

It pains me that I can't remember who to thank for one of my favourite quotes from history, any time I'm confronted with an insecure American on an anti-British rant. The quotee, whoever it was, was a woman lecturing a similarly puffed-up American on the War of Independence as a great British victory. When he sputtered his indignation, she explained that since the War was fought by British colonists against a German king employing German mercenaries, it was difficult to see what else it could be called.

Heh.

Anyway, methinks the 'higher form of American' here doth protest too much. I think most of the people here who've stopped to think about it have acknowledged at least that the actual ownership of guns is entirely legal in the area in question. The American right to own guns isn't at issue, so probably didn't need this fervent a defence. The American *attitude* to guns (or rather, the attitude of some Americans to guns) is an issue - but that's because, for a lot of other nations, that attitude is so utterly alien. For an alarmingly large number of you, they're not merely essential tools to ensure the people's control over the government: they're *idols*. I think that's what worries a lot of Americans and foreigners alike.

Now, since I've said before I can't really understand what makes this article 'news', I'm not going to start telling you what the point is here. There really isn't one other than, like I said, giving the anti-religionists yet another feeble excuse to bash. I certainly don't think the point is to denigrate Americans. Just, maybe, a certain type - perhaps a 'higher form' - of American.

What's actually the point here?

I've been reading El Reg long enough to know not to ask about the IT angle for a story. But here the question is, what's the point of the story?

Having read through the article and the comments I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be getting irate about. As many have already pointed out, the church isn't doing anything illegal. Odd, in the eyes of many of us Brits, and probably those Americans who aren't obsessed with guns - but "some Americans love guns more than life itself" isn't exactly news, is it?

The incongruity of a church giving away weapons...? Yeah, I can sort of see that - religion of peace, and so on, yeah, sure. But again, it's hardly an earth-shattering development. Michael Moore pointed out a bank giving away guns to people opening accounts a few years back. It seems a bit bizarre, but companies - and presumably churches - need to offer things that people actually *want* if they're hoping it'll be an incentive. Many people in America like guns, which puts us right back to the point above. Can you own a gun and still follow a religion of peace? Or does owning a gun make you violent and supportive of violence? Seems that's not so much a debate about religion as the central question of the gun control debates.

The only thing I can really see this article's achieved is to give the "we hate religious people" Dawkins wannabes yet another excuse to chuck up all their usual worn-out bile and preen themselves on their intellectual greatness. And no, before they jump on me, I'm not a Christian.