|
1
|
General / Chat / Re: War in Iraq
|
on: Yesterday at 11:45:09 AM
|
The Americans are not leaving they are building 5 permanent hardened bases. The U.S. embassy there will be the biggest in the world with its own contingent of marines, special forces, cia, listening stations and all the paraphenalia of an occupying Govt.
Over the 2 'wars' and the sanctions we are getting upto between 500,000 and 700,000 civilian casualties inc women and children.
Over the longer term we are looking at birth defects and still born babies due to the use of depleted uranium armamemts and the largest deloyment of cluster munitions anywhere in the world (over a million bomblets).
The water supply is destroyed as is the electricity as well as the economy.
Iraq will function as a hostage economy with fat contracts and profits being sucked out by western companies.
For Fallujah alone Bush, Blair, Cheney and the higher command should be in the Haig answering war crimes charges.
https://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde140712003
Human rights watch:
"In a single day, U.S. cluster-munition attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and injured 109. A hospital director in the southern Iraqi city told Human Rights Watch that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war. Human Rights Watch obtained hospital records from Hilla, Najaf and Nasariya indicating 2,279 civilian casualties in March and April, including 678 dead and 1,601 injured."
https://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/12/iraq6582.htm
U.S. DOD official casualties 2932 soldiers killed with 44,095 injured. I suspect the real figures are at least double this. Keeping casualty lists down is a given for the military. For instance injured soldiers evacuated to other countries who did not die 'in theatre' are not counted in these figures. |
|
|
|
|
2
|
General / Chat / Re: The 'Yes' machine.
|
on: December 27, 2006, 11:27:12 PM
|
blue eyes doesn't want anything
what blue eyes needs however is another story.
Is blue eyes connected to the story? |
|
|
|
|
4
|
General / Chat / Re: Telewests TDrive
|
on: December 27, 2006, 03:49:11 PM
|
Why would I pay £15 per month for what's basically a fancy vhs?
I often wonder this. Does Sky+ have anything to it other than being a lazy man's video recorder? If you have the right phone provider you can record something while you are out from your mobile. So in answer, I don't think so  Is that worth £180 a year? There's never been a time when I was out the house and thought to myself "Oh shit, 'whatever' is on, I'd pay £180 to be able to record that" how many times can you ignore people saying If you've got anything other than shit Sky (i.e. if you're subscribed to Sports or whatever) then you don't pay the monthly subscription to Sky +. ...? Or does it not suit your argument. Basically, yes, its a lazy mans higher quality, generally much easier to use & less space consuming VHS system, as well as recording mutiple things & live pausing. It by no means is ground breaking, but the likelyhood of you watching Changing Rooms ever again greatly decreases, and I would pay over £2,000 a year for that. ... dirty WUM.  The chances of me watching Changing Rooms is already zero. How does this device lower that? It's still a hundred pound for the box plus £60 for installation. And since I don't subscribe to one, let alone two premium channels, it would be £10 a month. Add that to the £15 a month minimum standard cost and that means I've laid out £160 to start and then £300 a year bare minimum, all to be able to fast forward adverts? I'd rather go on a nice holiday and browse a magazine during the ad's cheers. Christ, I thought the TV license was bad but at least the beeb have the good grace to remain ad free at a third of the price and avoid too many repeats.
Content, content, content. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
General / Chat / Re: XBOX360 v Wii
|
on: December 27, 2006, 03:47:30 PM
|
Get a Wii, it's something new and exciting. Anything an XBox 360 can do, a PC will be able to do in a few months anyway, if not already depending on how good your PC is. Therefore, Wii = value for money. I was in a similar position, pondering what to get. Then got none of them. F***ing rip offs. 
....and these console games haven't really evolved in the last 10 years.  |
|
|
|
|
6
|
General / Chat / Re: George Orwell was right?
|
on: December 27, 2006, 03:32:44 PM
|
George Orwell was a snide, I watched a documentary a while back about how he stole most of his ideas from another writer.
They all do.
I think D.M.Thomas nicked a whole book!! |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Football / NUFC / Re: Roeder IS the right man for THIS Newcastle United
|
on: December 27, 2006, 03:15:43 PM
|
We're 11th in the League and scraping results against the likes of Watford at home tbh. You'll not see me fawning over Roeder any time soon. Long way to go to prove that we've turned any sort of corner.
Yes this is the rhyme and the reason.
Not getting any reasonable def in when we had the chance is why we will lose games to the likes of Bolton. One slightly older head would have vastly increased our chances of sneaking the 0-1. You can only really point the finger at Roeder for that, leaving it all till the last 2 days of the transfer window and then blowing it. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
General / Chat / Re: George Orwell was right?
|
on: December 27, 2006, 03:08:45 PM
|
"....if a Govt Dept calls or writes say nothing, sign nothing and learn the phrase talk to my lawyer / accountant." Kiwi
Wise words.  |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Football / NUFC / Re: The time is nearly upon us
|
on: December 23, 2006, 03:53:50 PM
|
my promise to you is that if you lot somehow manage to win, Kindawson will not be seen around these parts for a while.
LET THE BATTLE COMMENCE.
Surely we can't lose a 3-1 lead?
Don't tempt fate Melan.
Can't see or hear the game but sounds like Dyer and Marty is working. |
|
|
|
|
12
|
General / Chat / Re: Santa
|
on: December 22, 2006, 12:58:47 PM
|
"What? You mean Santa's not real?!"
How come Taylor27's not thrown his toys out the pram about this thread - surely there must be kiddies roaming around where he's browsing this page who could be offended by people posting such harmful rumours - you'll spoil the kids' Christmas with this and what is more, this thread violates T27 and his kiddy relatives' human rights...
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
General / Chat / Re: Santa
|
on: December 22, 2006, 11:22:15 AM
|
The rumours were pretty rife the minute I started school.
This thread's about Santa, not homosexuality. 
Gemma testing the water again. |
|
|
|
|
16
|
General / Chat / Re: ID costs estimated at £ 5.4 billion for starters
|
on: December 22, 2006, 11:01:04 AM
|
Suppose that the comparison of (say) iris photographs is 99.99% accurate: that is, when you compare my iris photograph against my reference photograph, the system identifies me correctly in 9,999 out of 10,000 cases, and says it's not me one time in 10,000. Similarly, when you compare my iris photograph against someone else's, 9,999 times out of 10,000, it says it's not me, and one time out of 10,000 it says it is me.
[i]Now suppose that I go down to ID Cards 'R' Us (proprietor: Capita plc., most likely) to get an ID card. My iris is photographed, and to ensure that I'm not a Bad Evil Terrorist, my iris photograph is compared against the reference photographs for everyone else in the database (about 40,000,000 people). Even with a 0.01% error rate, the system will come up with 4,000 matches to me -- that's 4,000 people who have to be individually checked to make sure that they're not actually false identities that belong to me.
(Note that in real systems the false accept rate is likely to be different from the false reject rate; it's the false accept rate we care about here.)
Now, according to this report on an iris recognition system tested by the US Department of Defence, the false accept error rate for a typical current system is claimed to be one in a million by its manufacturer, but in practice is probably more like one in 90,000. That gets us down to about 444 people who have to be checked as potential false matches for each ID card issued. If we believe the manufacturer, then it's 40. If you believe that we can afford to investigate in detail the backgrounds of 40 people for each new ID card issued -- which is what will be necessary to ensure that you issue exactly one ID card to each person in the population -- then you're more of an optimist than me. (Optimistically, we can cut out half those matches as being of the wrong gender, and maybe another half as being too different in age to be the same person. But that's still ten people who need to be checked. Doing this properly would be insanely expensive.)
Of course, in reality what will happen is that Crapita (or whatever other contractor puts in the cheapest bid for the system) will hand the sodding things out to all and sundry with no proper checks at all.
In all reality it won't have any savings on DSS fraud and will infact make it easier for terrorists to look safer hiding behind what looks like legit data.
Imo the best way to counter terrorism is to let Mi5 get on with it, they are good at it and they are professionals. If people are genuinely worried about our defence against terrorism give the £6b to Mi5 and counter terrorist police agencies.
Point Indi made earlier, the terrorists aren't that bothered about people finding out about their identity anyway after the event, as that is the whole point of their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
General / Chat / Re: ID costs estimated at £ 5.4 billion for starters
|
on: December 22, 2006, 10:48:45 AM
|
Do ID cards facilitate discrimination?
"Yes. The success of ID cards as a means of fighting crime or illegal immigration will depend on a discriminatory checking procedure which will target minorities.
The irony of the ID card option is that it invites discrimination by definition. Discriminatory practices are an inherent part of the function of an ID card. Without this discrimination, police would be required to conduct random checks, which in turn, would be politically unacceptable.
All discrimination is based on one of two conditions : situational or sectoral. Situational discrimination targets people in unusual circumstances. i.e. walking at night, visiting certain areas, attending certain functions or activities, or behaving in an abnormal fashion. Sectoral discrimination targets people having certain characteristics i.e. blacks, youths, skinheads, motor cycle riders or the homeless. ID cards containing religious or ethnic information make it possible to carry this discrimination a step further.
Several developed nations have been accused of conducting discriminatory practices using ID cards. The Government of Japan recently came under fire from the United Nations Human Rights Committee for this practice. The Committee had expressed concern that Japan had passed a law requiring that foreign residents must carry identification cards at all times. The 18-member panel examined human rights issues in Japan in accordance with the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Japan ratified the covenant in 1979. The Alien Registration Law, ``the Committee complained in its report, is not consistent with the covenant''.
Ironically, the Parliaments of several European nations, including France and Holland, have accepted a law introducing the obligation to identify oneself in numerous situations including, for instance, at work, at football stadiums, on public transport an in banks. While the card is voluntary in name, it is in effect a compulsory instrument that will be carried at all times by Dutch citizens. Moreover, foreigners can always be asked to identify themselves to authorities at any moment and in any circumstance.
French police have been accused of overzealous use of the ID card against blacks, and particularly against Algerians. Greek authorities have been accused of using data on religious affiliation on its national card to discriminate against people who are not Greek Orthodox./size]"
This is the slippery slope and it is a very slippery slope. Once we get into this there will be no turning back and what is left of the bond of trust between Govt. and THE PEOPLE will ultimately break down. And as history teaches us in the end the Govt. ALWAYS LOSES. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
General / Chat / Re: ID costs estimated at £ 5.4 billion for starters
|
on: December 22, 2006, 10:30:27 AM
|
"Estimates of the extent of fraud on benefits agencies varies widely. The Toronto Social Services Department, for example, officially estimates fraud by way of false identity at less than one tenth of one percent of benefits paid13, whereas the Australian Department of Social Security estimates the figure at ten times that amount.14 Estimates of fraud vary widely between one tenth on one per cent of total benefits, to as high as four percent.15 Britain's popular estimate of one to two billion pounds is, in international terms, at the high end of the spectrum."
We can see that we are dealing mainly with estimates with a wide range of ESTIMATED figures, there are NO REAL FIGURES. Although Govt. likes to portray that they somehow they have done research on this and that they HAVE THE DATA. They don't. Our estimate is ONE TO TWO BILLION POUNDS IE A GUESS...Based on what? Yes estimates and extrapolation. Ok say we do SAVE TWO BILLION, THE I.D. card scheme will end up costing if we actually only DOUBLE THE GOVT estimated cost, you know how they always get these costs wrong on purpose to make it look as appealing as possible 12 BILLION and that doesn't include running costs, hardware and software maintenance, consultancies, administration etc etc etc..SO on the Dole fraud front there are no savings at all just more costs.
"The Parliamentary Select Committee on the Australia Card warned that the revenue promises of the card scheme were little better than "Qualitative assessment" - in other words, guesswork. The Department of Finance refused to support the Health Insurance Commission's (HIC) cost benefit estimates (the HIC was the principle agency behind the scheme). Revenue was constantly revised downward, while the costs continued to rise. The Department of Social Security insisted that the ID card would have done little or nothing to diminish welfare fraud. In evidence to the parliamentary committee investigating the proposal, the Department said that much less than one per cent of benefit overpayments resulted from false identity. The Department decided that it would pursue other means of tackling fraud. The DSS in the UK argued against ID cards on the same grounds."
https://www.privacy.org/pi/activities/idcard/idcard_faq.html |
|
|
|
|
19
|
General / Chat / Re: ID costs estimated at £ 5.4 billion for starters
|
on: December 22, 2006, 10:20:13 AM
|
....another reason the whole thing is ill thought through cobblers. When and how will all the data be checked? Having biometrics on an Identity Card is useless unless that data is checked. Sure, airports will have expensive scanners - what about other places? Banks, the Off license, the pub...  The Government plans for ID Cards to be used in place of credit cards. Will every supermarket till and every corner shop have an iris scanner? If not then the biometrics add no extra security at all. Hold on lads just getting me eyes scanned for the 5th time tonight!!1111 I really don't think it will happen. OMG here we go again. Parky, do you believe that just because there are 13 biometrics (not more than 50, as you claimed earlier ) that all of these 13 biometrics will be checked everytime in every place a person is asked to produce the ID card? You say "I don't think it will happen" in a sarcastic way as though it means the card is shit. Parky, all 13 biometrics WILL NOT be checked every time. You are scaremongering...AGAIN. So when will they be checked? Just at airports? The Dole Office? Look at the queues now you nutter? It's unworkable and unwanted. Many will refuse to give data and the £6b cost will triple at the very least, these budgets always explode when they get down to it. On the upside at least you are being a little more honest now and admitting you're not that keen on them but prepared to give it a go. Unlike some I'm honest all the time. I very much doubt that all 13 biometrics will ever be checked at one time. Do you honestly not realise that? FFS!  They all can't be checked it's too time consuming but if you know anything about it the iris check will probably be the most important one...Thought you'd been reading up on it??? Main reason being they still can't get the face one to work accurately enough yet in tests. It's already been cracked anyway. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2021596,00.html"ID cards will not combat ID fraud - they may well make it worse," said Edward Garnier, the Tory home affairs spokesman. "Independent experts say there is ‘a substantial body of evidence’ to show the establishment of ID cards could actually increase ID fraud rather than combat it. This has been borne out in the USA and Australia where criminals, by simply obtaining a single identity hub specific to that person, have been able to access all kinds of personal information.
"If a criminal cracked the ID card database - and the Government’s record on running IT-based projects does not inspire confidence - they would have access to a goldmine of information."
It's all over.
Btw criminals won't have to crack any database. Of the thousands of people verifying the new data and inputting the data into the system some will suddenly develop a lucrative second income.
I literally only have to think about this for 5 min to know it's unworable and will be scrapped.
Where are they going to get all the initial scans done to feed into the system? Your local hospital? |
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
