|
Phoenix
|
Rather than posting separate topics, here's a few interesting ones that should raise more than a few hackles
Illegal Aliens at Nuclear Power Plant
More to this one than it first seems. Someone's screw up is someone else's excuse to push for National ID cards again, and if you think that's a good idea, better read this next one:
Finger Print Supermarket Shopping
Edeka bosses said they were confident the system could not be abused. Right, where have we heard that before? Oh, and that shooting in the courthouse over the weekend? I guess someone was asleep at the switch. Nice to know that Big Brother is watching out for you... sometimes... when he feels like it... when you're up to something... Right. They can taser a 6 year old school kid for being unruly, but they can't keep an accused rapist secured for trial? Good job fellas, too bad a bunch of people had to die because of your incompetence! Gay marriage is back in the headlines again too. I forsee much jurisdictional squabbling, and much more angry rhetoric from both sides of the discussion. Feel free to comment, rant, rave, or make faces as you see fit.[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
They can taser a 6 year old school kid for being unruly, Often wish I could. :!: |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-03-15, 00:34 by shambler »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
YicklePigeon
Ogre
Posts: 56
|
I'll tackle the topics raised in the order in which they were presented:-
So, the system fails..again. And this time illegal immigrants get near a nuclear powerplant...if they had any terrorist notions in their heads - it would have been a Chernobyl scenario all over again.
How did it happen? I can only guess. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was bribery at the docks/airports that allowed the immigrants and their possible handler(s) to escape unhindered. Indeed, over here, immigrants were kept in a detention area until their asylum claims had been processed. They should have been sent back to wherever they came from and allow genuine-gone-through-the-system-from-afar asylum seekers in that have enough money to support themselves and more important than all: a job waiting for them.
I understand that is how it is in Australia anyway...
---
Fingerpint shopping? Ok, let me go through the motions as I understand them:-
1. Checkout operator scans in every single item as usual, possibly making price corrections for reduced items or manually pricing something that doesn't scan at all/scans unknown.
2. Checkout operator then gives out the price and waits for payment. If this fingerprint system is in place then there are two possible outcomes:-
2a: The only way this could work quickly: if User = registered then User enter Password then fingerpint scan takes place else force user to register. Possible pitfalls/exploits: what if you can't remember your password? What if the system crashes? How about someone who is in control of the fingerprint/user databank simply assigns a fingerprint to another person?
2b. Registering a new user. So, let's see, you must have bank details, some proof that you live at the appropriate address (recent utility bill for example) and perhaps some form of ID with your photograph on it.
Now anyone can steal a bank book with your account details in it, if your house has been robbed...who's to say a utility bill went missing? And as for ID...how many times have reports come through of forged ID cards? Be it driving licence, age ID...bus pass (the latter is sometimes not accepted).
Oh and here's another thing: according to UK law, a birth certificate canNOT be used as identification. Hell, the certificate even has this printed on it! Yes I know that some organisations have this as a requirement...this is always in combination with something else. All the certificate can prove (in combination) is your date of birth...thus your age.
So, taking all this into account, just imagine how long it's going to take! Anyone who either works or has worked on a till in a supermarket knows just how long a card transaction can take. I see no difference in time took. Take a good look at this:-
Card transaction (credit card only): Swipe card->await contact with firm computers->check if amount breaches credit limit->if so then send back ACCESS DENIED, if not then register the transaction and send back an ok to the till operator->Till then prints out a small receipt for the transaction that the customer then signs->Check signature->Till operator either authorises the transaction or denies it.
Finger print transaction (similar to debit card): Swipe ID card->ID check OK->Hand scanning device to customer->finger print is scanned and compared->does account have enough funding? If not, then send back ACCESS DENIED, if so continue->Send OK back to till operator and print out final receipts.
And this is supposed to be quick? Card transactions can take upwards of two minutes (in addition to time took scanning the items and bagging them) - this finger print system feels like it will take just as long. I'd prefer a cash transaction any day! "That'll be ?18.92 then please!" *handed a ?20 note* "Thank you" *enters in amount, till opens, displays how much change to give* "Bye! NEXT!!!".
---
Finally, gay marriage, to me this is only right or wrong in a person's head. One thing I detest is forcing one's thinking onto another - you want to eat meat? Go right ahead, nothing to do with me! You want to have sexual relationships with the same gender? Go right ahead, nothing to do with me!
Is that ignoring it? NO. I simply keep out of other people's business and expect the same in return. It is those we see on television news reports holding placards that annoy us, not those who simply want to be left alone to live out their lives in peace.
As a vegetarian, I am often given the "OMG! YOU FREAK!" or "You should really eat meat because it contains or you won't survive!" treatment - how about keeping your traps shut? Everyone chooses how they want to die. Whether it's eating at McDonald's every day, getting to the point where they're so bloated their heart can't push the blood around anymore or snorting cocaine so much that eventually the user overdoses and dies. Hell, that's just self-imposed causes...how about external causes we have absolutely zero control over? If I get run over by a car, then regardless of one's sexuality, diet, overall mindset...I'll still die just like anyone else. I could slip in the bath, the banister might break as I walk down the stairs.
Point: We all CAN die, we have known those who HAVE died, we WILL die. It makes gay marriage pale in that light no? If they want to live in that kind of relationship that involves staying together until they too die - more power to them! Life is too fragile no matter what we do to preserve ourselves.
It is all we can do to make sure that our offspring/eventual offspring are raised to be independent, tough and good natured in this world. What with it's gangs, the hate, the crime, the pricks/bitches who corrupt the land with their offspring who only want to cause hate/destruction without any remorse or inner cause...
(sighs)
I'm going to get something to eat and pass the net connection over to my mother. I wonder if anything I said made sense?
Regards,
Yickle.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ranting is permitted here. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
And here's an interesting twist to the whole gay-marriage dispute in California:
The native of Brookline, Mass., earned his law degree at the University of Southern California and practiced civil law in San Francisco before then-Gov. Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years, the 57-year-old Roman Catholic and registered Republican has gained a reputation for being compassionate, respectful and unbiased. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...3/15/KRAMER.TMPApparently the judge who ruled in this matter is a Catholic Republican. Now that's sure to raise some eyebrows on all sides.[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
YicklePigeon
Ogre
Posts: 56
|
To me, he done the right thing. He put aside what his viewpoints are on the subject matter - regardless of his religion and/or his own sexuality and how the media and indeed the public might react. That could be seen in a different light, such as giving those who disagree with him the finger. Of course, doing what's right doesn't necessarily mean you'll win the battle - playing against Tab in Gen taught me that much ;} Something I remembered: sometime last year on the daily TV show "Richard & Judy", two homosexual comedians and one scientist was brought on as guests. Unfortunately, from my point of view, the scientist was trying to give out the facts as the study had revealed thus far and the "comedians" were basically on there to tear him to shreds. Anyway - a related link to this can be found here and is essentially what the scientist said on TV oh so long ago. Regards, Yickle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
To me, he done the right thing. He put aside what his viewpoints are on the subject matter - regardless of his religion and/or his own sexuality and how the media and indeed the public might react. Well, that's where I have to raise issue. Judges are not supposed to "do the right thing", they're supposed to uphold the law. In US law it is the job of the legislature to pass laws and "do the right thing". Where there's a great deal of contention right now is two-fold: First the issue of gay marriage carries its own controversy, but also there's the aspect of "judicial activism", that is, where judges act according to something other than a strict interpretation of the letter of the law, judicial precedent, and intent of author. If you've heard the term "legislating from the bench" that is describing where a judge decides arbitrarily on a case, or makes a ruling that effectively usurps legislative authority.
The larger problem is this is always intertwined with some kind of social issue, so the issue of judicial activism circumventing the normal legislative process becomes hidden behind the more vociferous debate of the social issue. Let's face it, which is going to be more interesting to argue about - legal procedure, or gay marriage? So where's the press coverage going to be? I personally have no problem with the people deciding legislatively what they think marriage should or should not be. What I have a problem with is when judges overstep their bounds, make an arbitrary ruling, and use their power in a manner inconsistent with their legal authority. When this goes unchecked, this is a problem because it destroys the very system of checks and balances that are there to prevent any one branch of government from being more powerful than any other. Right now it may appear beneficial to many because it's advancing a cause they believe in, but in the long term it is a very dangerous situation as it infringes on the rights of all citizens to due process and constitutional protection. When it becomes convenient to do away with certain civil liberties it becomes a great deal easier to do so when a judge can just mandate an order based on a whim than when it has to pass through an elected legislative body that is answerable to the voters. That's what concerns me. Who holds these judges accountable when and if they step outside the law? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
YicklePigeon
Ogre
Posts: 56
|
I agree with you. That's why I said it doesn't necessarily win the battle. When I typed that up I was thinking along the lines of this:- Foster (angry): But we're RIGHT!
Straker (cool and collected): Sometimes being right isn't enough...
That aside, the unfortunate answer to your final question would be: other judges. Of whom are held by the same laws, failings of all of the human species - moral and otherwise...it's something I haven't properly considered at this time. --- On what has happened here, within the UK, both from monitoring news reports and my own first hand experience from a wide variety of people, there would be a public outcry. All recognised centres for homosexuals would be targeted by thuggery and general brutality, much like now but on a larger scale. In the big cities, the hatred/violence would be more general in it's nature. But in small villages of about 2000 people where they can easily be seen and brought to the thug's way of "justice". And I should know how that can happen, I live in one of those small out-of-the-way places. If you do anything that's peculiar (to someone else anyway) it'll spread like wildfire. Soon the entire place will know. This has happened to me and my closer friends, both locally and internationally. We are not bad people, we do not commit crimes against people or the state, hell we help others less fortunate than ourselves and are fairly decent human beings. And I fear, it is because of that, that we are persecuted should we ever give the lower lifeforms ammunition to do so. (the following is slightly off-topic here, bear with me!) Where I work, I served an old lady of whom, roughly 30 minutes later upon reaching her front door - was mugged...for the shopping I'd only recently packed for her. There are those I know who have the idea of "rough justice". I feel, however, that this is just a vent to justify picking some potentially innocent soul and "making an example" of them. It is extremely easy to be walking the streets in a gang, find one person walking alone and beat them to death. Make them feel tough and all that...where I was raised initially, I know they could not survive in that environment for long because their attitudes/egos would invariably cause or get involved in a fight...and they would perish against the big boys. Bringing myself back on course, just think of what would happen if a rumour was started that some particular person is a "homosexual"? Even if the statement was made in jest, by the time it reached these pseudo-vigilantes (and I use that term advisedly) the particular person in this hypothetical situation may or may not get beaten/killed for some ill-considered small talk. Just like the old fashioned witchhunts. Maybe I've just watched too much of the original X-Men cartoon too much...or I have learned/re-learned the morals and messages being conveyed beneath the action...indeed, what I have typed up thus far is quite a possible future should the media focus (think front page material) completely on gay marriage yet again. Regards, Yickle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lordbane2110
|
I Personally just think it's a sad state of affairs
If People are Gay and want to Marry, who am I to argue
If People want to be Veggie, Vegan, or Non Carb let them
it's always just a select few, who have to impose there self appointed authority on others
where as they should just look at themselves
and leave other people alone
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Sadly, reasonable minds tend to be scarce. Everything that Yickle has put forth, despite some apparently deliberate vagueness for reasons of which I am sure are justified owing to the context of his discussion, is true. The mob mindset is an extremely dangerous one, and all it takes is for one loudmouth to start a rumor and the witchhunts begin. Human history can attest to that.
The problem, on the other hand, with people forcing their beliefs on others is that it works both ways. With the whole gay marriage discussion usually the Religious Right is the most vocal in its opposition. The result is they are accused of being bigoted or intolerant, some of which is true depending on who you are dealing with. However, if it is within a person's beliefs that certain behavior is unacceptable, than mandating acceptence is also forcing a belief upon someone. This is why there is such a problem with the whole issue, it's not so cut and dry as people want to make it out to be. Everyone in this believes their position is the right one, and nobody is willing to back down, compromise, or even have an open discussion. It's either "intolerant bigot homophobe" or "perverted sexual deviant bound for hell", depending on who is doing the shouting at the time. Again, we see the mob mindset at work, but on both sides where the extremist elements tend to be the most paranoid.
This is precisely why the US Constitution placed an amendment process and a Bill of Rights into the picture. Pure democracy is mob rule, whereas a dictatorship, oligarchy, or feudal society is a minority rule. A Constitutional Republic tries to mix the best of both by demanding cooler heads make decisions in the interests of all, yet keeping those in charge accountable to the people. When the system fails, and judges "act on their conscience" then the whole process is in danger of being subverted. I think a public debate is a wonderful thing. Get the issue on the table, let people make up their minds, but don't dictate from the judge's bench. If the system is going to fall apart and the only way something will be resolved is by one side ramming legal dictates down the other side's throat then it's time for someone to think up a better way to deal with problems like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
YicklePigeon
Ogre
Posts: 56
|
Pho: Yeah I was being deliberately vague in that post, for the reason that get's most people who pull my chosen diet to shreds in favour of theirs: beserker rage. And add to this I didn't want to focus too heavily on events that are mostly unrelated and other events where I didn't want to name names :} Y'know some people think of "Urge to kill rising", mine doesn't rise! It is either on...or off. When I do fly into a rage, I don't think, I don't care - I just go for the throat of whomever just crossed my "how dare you/they!" path. --- (sighs) It is like saying "I have never lied", "I will not force my way of life on another" is just as untrue as one says it. It is a given that we shall all (at some point) force our way of life/viewpoint onto another....whether it's just a radio presenter playing his favourite music regardless or something far more sinister. (I feel like I have typed that before, or something similar). As far as a public debate, I find it would turn out very much like the "Jean Grey addressing the Senate" scene of X-Men 1. You will have some person being quite the Senator Kelly, in that the person would be sensationalising "information" to assassinate the character of any who would support (in this example) "gay marriage". And one will no doubt find a Senator Kelly type character on the opposing side too. Just as what Pho basically said above ("I AM RIGHT! YOU ARE WRONG!" "Nooo...*I* AM RIGHT! IT IS YOU THAT IS WRONG!!" etc). This just makes me want to scream. --- On a lighter note, I found something again that not only made me laugh out loud (again) - but is something I think we can all relate to...find it here. Note: This flash cartoon contains explicit language. If at work, then put headphones on, else just leave it alone until you get home :} Regards, Yickle. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
Your right Pho. I'm Chirstian, and yes I belive it is unnatural to be a homosexual, but I don't scream bloody murder when I meet a gay person. I think BOTH sides should get a clue that all this arguing is skewing society. I want everyone to just shut up, and keep your 2 cents, instead of always thowing it in.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moshman
|
Even with the loud mouth Catholics/Chirstians banishing anyone who contradicts them to the fiery eternal flame VS GayProChoice ppl saying the Bible is a hate speech and giving prision time to ppl who preach, MY belive is God wants both sides to grow up. We should look at ourselves before we start rambling on worse then an old lady.
However, I think there should be a point where we draw the line on both sides, find out what is truley right with irrefutable evidence instead of everyones' political correctness spin all the time. (*cough*cough* Peter Jennings *Choke*Choke*)
I mean really, is it me?, correct me if I'm wrong, but is it the age where people say things like, "Well, if you think it's right, then it is true for you." That starts wars, diplomatically and military. Ex: The catholics had a civil war (not sure if it was catholics) over the fact if you must baptize your baby at birth or not. I mean, lives were lost over it. Now that's a thing you would say that quote too. But big issues like morality issues, sexual cleaniliess, must be disscussed with absolutley no spin, irrefutable evidence to support or be against. The problem is OUR natural human tendency to sin (non-religiously speaking), our destructive nature, the drive to always be the strongest, smartest, fastest person in history, and most of all, our constant quest to always be right and never wrong.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-03-20, 11:49 by Little Washu »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
