So, if corporations didn't have to pay taxes. They would hire more people or pay them more.

Nice to see the season of goodwill trumping realism.

It's more likely (though less desirable) that the fat cats would just award themselves bigger bonuses.

Facebook is not a required service. Nobody has to use it. Users are not paying for it.

I do not understand why Facebook should have to do anything. I think Germany telling a web site owner/developer that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Germans do not like sharing their real name online, then Germans should not join Facebook. Simple! How is it Facebook's problem that Germans want a feature that Facebook does not support?

Germany is not a required market for Facebook. Nobodyis forcing Facebook to operate there.

I do not understand why Germany should have to do anything. I think a web site owner/developer telling a country that they have to make their system work a particular way is wrong. If Facebook do not like the rules, then Facebook should not operate there. Simple! How is it Germany's problem that Germans have laws that Facebook does not support?

Fixed that for you

just wish my own country's cabinet ministers were as protective of its citizens and less easily bought off by big business buddies.

Why not indeed?

The emergency number in the UK is 999 but all systems are configured to route 112 and 999 to the same place.

I wish someone would kill this meme once and for all.

The source for the "Government CCTV everywhere" myth was a reporter looking at a sample street and extrapolating. A bit like taking the population density of downtown LA, Chicago or New York and applying it to the whole US land area and saying the US population was tens of billions [I'm too lazy to work out the figures but I hope you get the idea].

The overwhelming majority of CCTV cameras are privately owned (therefore they must be good in Slashdot groupthink) and not controlled by/accessible to the government/police/spooks... Even when they may have captured evidence of a crime it's non trivial for the authorities to get hold of the data and when they do, given the screenings shown on TV appeals*, the recordings are of such poor quality that it's debatable why they're there at all.

If anything you have more anonymity nowadays than a generation or two ago when a whole army of little "old ladies sitting behind net curtains" and gossiping about the goings on of people in the street was the norm -- still probably the case in smaller communities everywhere.

If you're really concerned, you have a right under current data protection laws to see/be given a copy of recordings where you are identifiable; not sure if anyone has ever bothered with this.

Now this proposed bill, on the other hand, is a completely different matter; the level of outrage is a feature of people faced with a first past the post electoral system that favours two parties who are more similar than different -- should be familiar to you too ;-)

Please don't equate British people with our MPs

*There's a programme on BBC every month or so where they appeal for help in solving some cases and show CCTV footage and re-enactments.

To each his own....

I've seen the alternative approach - back in the days of dumb terminals (remember them?) patched through to a VAX cluster.
The solution the support team [not me!] adopted was to pull out a patch cable - wait for the help call - be very polite and say "I'll try to fix it for you - whereabouts are you?" , label the cable and then plug it back in -- often with a pathetically grateful user at the other end phoning back their thanks. Simple, but effective (yet not terribly professional).

As for labelling power plugs... I once unplugged our freezer at home thinking it was my laser printer [they're both in the box room]. You can imagine what it was like when I got back from holiday. An expensive mistake which taught me the value of a self adhesive label and marker pen !!

Back from the past...

Your bundle of bundles approach sounds good if you have the luxury of choice of cable colours. Usually different coloured cables are used to signify different networks.

Cannot recommend this highly enough. Label both ends of every cable and the back of every power plug -- then you'll know what to expect when you pull it out.

Second only to this - two ring bound folders and a hole punch. Seriously.

Then you document cable layouts, server details (serial numbers, IP/MAC addresses, configuration details, software licences....) in your favourite tool and take a print out. File the printouts - one in the server room and one elsewhere. It may seem old tech but it will save your skin when you lose connectivity/database/application... -- by all means keep a copy on your own PC/Tablet and or a DVD backup but do keep paper copies -- spoken from experience

Of course this requires discipline to track changes and keep the records up to date but it will save you much more time in the long run than the occasional trip to the shops to buy a specific screwdriver bit.

Finally, I agree with a lockable cabinet -- tools can evaporate faster than a puddle on a hot summers day ;-)

Fallacy.

True they don't cost you directly but you still pay indirectly.

• NBC (and other commercial broadcasters) aren't charities - they need paying to make a profit
• NBC charges advertisers
• Advertisers also want paying and charge their customers -- companies
• The companies don't give money to advertises for nothing - it's a business cost so they charge their customers
• The end customer pays for everything -- so a portion of the purchase price you pay for goods pays for adverts and a portion of that pays for the TV channel

You do pay - just not visibly. The budgets for most commercial stations are similar (and in some cases more than) the BBC and similar broadcasters.

I know people who say "I don't watch BBC so why should I pay a licence?" -- the counter argument is "I don't watch [much] commercial TV yet still pay an advertising premium when buying my shopping".

Personally speaking, I'm happy to pay for BBC to have a broadcaster who can afford to be impartial and unafraid of repercussions if it criticises a company or organisation. Not having adverts every few minutes and being treated as an adult with a real attention span is a real bonus.

BTW I am not associated with the BBC in any way other than as a licence fee payer

I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.

Pram is a common shortening of "perambulator" ** -- a baby carriage on wheels. These days they're not so common as baby buggies (smaller lightweight versions) have taken their place as 'traditional' prams were bigger, heavier coachbuilt affairs - more room for the baby and with bigger wheels/better suspension but not very practical for transporting in cars.

Throwing ones toys out of the pram is a common expression in the UK. It's roughly equivalent to "throwing a hissy fit" / "having a tantrum" -- ie exhibiting impotent rage and/or childish behaviour, making a lot of noise and fuss yet gaining nothing but causing inconvenience to others as they have to retrieve them [or not]

** Perambulator - in the sense it let the baby and carer go for a walk (perambulate) -- Old fashioned and I don't know anyone who still says perambulator these days [or even said it in my childhood many years ago]

Or the chemist [pharmacist] who said

"We dispense with accuracy"

I know this is a matter of semantics rather than grammar.

au contraire ...

The insurance company charges the merchant a premium to cover this. The merchant is not a charity and often works on small margins so, guess what, the premium is passed off in higher prices to the customer - so because of the fraudsters everybody loses a little (it's just spread out thinly).

First off - this is a report by MPs - not even on the first step of becoming law - despite somewhat hyperbolic reporting.

Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount

Third - the only "Censoring" of Google etc. is a requirement to follow the terms of a court order - in the UK the courts are separate and distinct from the government.

Exec summary pasted below [from a PDF document - hence some formatting funnies]

A strong, free and vibrant press is essential to the good operation of democracy. Over the past 12 months, the culture and activities of the UK media have become the focus of widespread public concern, particularly in light of the phone hacking scandal. The balance between privacy and freedom of expression is at the heart of these debates about the role of the media.
We have considered how this balance should be struck, who should determine where the balance lies and how decisions, once taken, can be enforced. In making recommendations, we have been guided by the followingâ"
â The fundamental right to freedom of expression lies at the heart of this debate.
â The right to privacy is equally important. It is universal and can only be breached if there is a public interest in doing so.
â Although definitions of public interest change from time to time, an over-arching definition of public interest is the peopleâ(TM)s general welfare and well being; something in which the populace as a whole has a stake. It is not the same as that which is of interest to the public.
â We support the freedom of the press. The vitality of national and local media, in all its forms, is essential to the good operation of democracy.
â The rule of law in protecting the right to privacy should be upheld by all. If a judge has made a decision, based on hearing the full evidence in a case, that decision should be respected by those who have not heard all the evidence.
â Justice should be accessible to all. Protection of the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few.
â The Press Complaints Commission was not equipped to deal with systemic and illegal invasions of privacy. A strong, independent media regulator is essential to balance the competing rights of privacy and freedom of expression.
â The law must apply equally to all forms of media: print, broadcast and online.
It is important that privacy injunctions are obtained in circumstances which justify the intervention of the law; injunctions should not be too freely or easily obtainable. Departures from the principle of open justice should be exceptional. We believe that courts are now striking a better balance when dealing with applications for privacy injunctions.
We conclude that a privacy statute would not clarify the law. The concepts of privacy and the public interest are not set in stone, and evolve over time. We conclude that the current approach, where judges balance the evidence and make a judgment on a case-by-case basis, provides the best mechanism for balancing article 8 and article 10 rights.
Interim injunctions granted in one of the legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom should be enforceable in the other two UK jurisdictions in the same way as final injunctions are.
It is important that court orders apply to all forms of media equally. The growth of the internet and social networking platforms is a positive development for freedom
of of expression, but new media cannot be seen to be outside the reach of the law. We recommend that the courts should be proactive in directing the claimant to serve notice on social networking platforms and major web publishers when granting injunctions. We also recommend that major corporations, such as Google, take practical steps to limit the potential for breaches of court orders through use of their products and, if they fail to do so, legislation should be introduced to force them to. An effective deterrent against future breaches of injunctions online would be for the Attorney General to be more willing to bring actions for civil contempt of court for such breaches.
If a newspaper is intending to publish a story which concerns the private life of an individual then the subject of the story should be notified in advance unless there are compelling reasons not to. Although this should not be a statutory requirement, it should be included in the media regulatorâ(TM)s code of conduct. The courts, when awarding damages in privacy cases, should take into account any unjustified failure to pre-notify.
The ability to protect the right to privacy should not be available only to the wealthy few. We recommend measures to reduce the costs of privacy cases. These include more robust case management by judges and the consideration of cost capping.
The most important step towards improving protection of privacy is to provide for enhanced regulation of the media. We conclude that the Press Complaints Commission lacked the power, sanctions or independence necessary to be truly effective. The new regulator should be demonstrably independent of the industry and of government. It should be cost-free to complainants and should have access to a wider range of sanctions, including the power to fine and more power to require apologies to be published. Sanctions should be developed to ensure that all major news publishers, including digital publishers, come under its jurisdiction. The reformed regulator should develop an alternative dispute resolution process, to provide quicker, cheaper and easier resolution of privacy issues. A standing commission comprising members of both Houses of Parliament should be established to scrutinise industry-led reforms and to report on them to Parliament. However, should the industry fail to establish an independent regulator which commands public confidence, the Government should seriously consider establishing some form of statutory oversight. This could involve giving Ofcom or another body overall statutory responsibility for press regulation, the day-to-day running of which it could then devolve to a self-regulatory body.
Although freedom of speech in Parliament is a fundamental constitutional principle, we do not think that parliamentarians should reveal information subject to injunctions in Parliament unless there is a good reason to do so. We do not think some of the recent revelations of material subject to injunctions yet require a new parliamentary rule to prevent such disclosures; if such disclosures continue, then new rules should be considered. It is important that the media can be confident that they will be legally protected when reporting parliamentary proceedings in good faith. We therefore recommend that qualified privilege should apply to the reporting of all proceedings in Parliament.

With the Republic of Ireland

Whilst I'm no fan of unrestricted CCTV I don't see this as being a step towards tyranny.

Garages already have cameras in place to stop fuel theft (filling up and driving away -- one tankful can wipe out a day's earnings as the margins on fuel are low - why do you think forecourts also sell sweets, newspaper, groceries...).

Whether they should act as unpaid agents of the police in tracking the uninsured is debatable but uninsured driving is not a victimless crime.

If you're uninsured it's probably because you and/or the vehicle are a poor risk and more likely to get into an accident.

If you do get into an accident then innocent people could be disadvantaged (through injury and loss/damage to property) - who will pay to help them get back to the state they were in before? insurance companies - not if you're not insured (they're weaselly enough when you are!).

So the victim either loses out completely or, if they are very lucky may get a pittance from the criminal injuries compensation scheme - paid for by the taxpayer.

If the victim's car is damaged - they have to claim against their own insurance - losing "no claims discount" and getting higher premiums next year [and don't think about shopping around, the insurance companies pool claims data]. The insurers recoup this lost cost through putting up premiums for all of us.

Taking the uninsured driver to court may get him/her a conviction (more costs to the state/taxpayer to keep him/her in gaol or trying to recover fines) but precious little help in civil recovery for the victim.

The uninsured are a burden on everybody - I have no sympathy for them

In this case it seems a fair use.

Finally, since this is Slashdot, if you want a free market response - nobody is forcing you to buy petrol or drive uninsured - it's your choice; the garage also has freedom to mandate terms of sale.

So managers can move the goalposts more easily of course!

Shame you posted AC - and shame I haven't any mod points because this is a pretty good post and a fair reflection on the attitudes of many.

You've missed a few nuances:
The Daily Mail somehow contriving to blame "the fiasco" [ie any deviation from perfect performance] on the BBC, the EU, Muslims...

Rupert Murdoch's mates "hacking" the service (ie just exploiting human fallibility and poor security practices but glamorising it beyond belief)

The Slashdot meme of surveillance cameras everywhere - and how they'd use the bandwidth

The sanctimonious posing by Boris Johnson and cronies about how they're "investing for London" and the "Olympic legacy" -- followed by the quiet dismantling and removing of the service later.

I'm sure there are other suggestions - but your post was particularly good.