It won't! And I'll tell you something, it's not just them... other charities like NSPCC and Save the Children, they run these 'shops' where they sell stuff that isn't for children either! Ridiculous!

Ooo... very dangerous sentiment 'round these parts...

Ah... /.er admitting knowing nothing about something and then having judgemental opinion anyway. Christ this site is frustrating sometimes.

Ahh... anti-Burning Man. The new Hipster movement.

So putting this 3-test limit has achieved what exactly? If people can accurately judge whether they are ready to pass or not? To achieve your dubious goal you need to limit the amount of time allowed to *learn* to drive.

Not sure what Birmingham has to do with anything, but I have lived in Leeds, Manchester and Bradford, if that helps whatever point you're trying to make.

I never said all, I said largely, and there are many reasons for this that go way beyond the "white people are just superior" air that you are giving off. You're the one who dumped racial statistics that weren't asked for or relevant.

Errr... because a test is a massively different psychological situation than normal driving? You haven't heard of people who are quite capable at a subject but dry-up during exams? You couldn't even think of that reason?

And largely higher wealth levels for whites give far more opportunity to learn, own cars, have longer / better driving instructors, etc. But you're hellbent on backing up your racism, so go nuts.

Apart from that being an arbitrary and selfish number (I would bet my life on you having passed your test in 3 or less), I hope you're willing to pay for the massive investment on improving public transport necessary to accommodate all these people inferior to you that don't learn as fast as you.

Worth mentioning that most ethnic minorities live in cities and are likely to take their test in cities, which is a much harder place to take a test than a rural / suburban situation that a good number of whites would test in.

Of course you can know. This guy knew. He was deliberately trying to find stuff that he knew wasn't supposed to be public. If you didn't know then that would be a defence, but I can't see that being the case here.

The law isn't technical absolute booleans, intent matters, and what the person is trying to do is part of it. What a reasonable person expects and would I don't see the photography thing as a crazy law, should you be allowed to pry into my house just because technically you can and there's no cast-iron technical way to say not to?

At the risk of propagating this analogy-hell, I'm pretty sure that if your door is open, your property is still not a public place.

In the UK for example, if you point a camera at a building with a normal lens, that is fine. If you point a camera at a window with a high-zoom, that is not. Intent matters!

Interestingly this is roughly what happened in the UK with voice and data telecoms. BT (as the previously nationalised monopoly) is left with all the infrastructure, and the services on top, but they have to run them as separate businesses. Other companies have the right to piggy back on the last mile, and install their network hardware in BT exchanges. It worked very well for the ADSL-era, though an argument can be made that BT have wrested a bit too much influence again now that we're moving to fibre. Heavily regulated private business *can* work...

Alright there Mister Patronising... Not really Android is it though? When Android for vast majority of devices effectively means stock+tweaks+Google Play, solutions that are only for manufacturers to implement is a bit useless for the rest of us, isn't it?

An easy way to tell when someone doesn't know what they fuck they're talking about is if they mention the word "fragmentation". As an Android developer I can say that I barely worry about different devices with different capabilities. For the large majority of apps it doesn't matter. Nearly all my bugs are because I've done something wrong, not because a particular device is doing something wrong.