Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - 6 month subscription of Pandora One at 46% off. ×

Comment Re:Budget (Score 1) 61

The license fee payers pay for this: ie. everyone who watches broadcast TV in the UK.

It used to be, rightly, the Foreign Office who paid for it - rightly because its aim is to spread British propaganda throughout the world, but the (Murdoch-loving, privatise everything including your mum) Tories hate the BBC and so forced them to take it under their budget (in between the other hacks and slashes at their budget). So now you have the rather absurd and indefensible position where license fee payers are funding the British government's outreach objectives to North Korea (et al.), instead of having that money being used to provide programming they can enjoy/use/ignore/complain about.

The reason this happened is largely yet another spineless tit at the head of the BBC. One in a long line, I'm afraid. The last decent one was chucked out (Greg Dyke) for daring to allow a modicum of criticism of Tony's Big Iraqi Adventure. Now the BBC is fast becoming a shadow of its former self and is often considerably editorially compromised by the Conservative party's agenda (as often communicated through the posessed-by-evil pages of the hateful Daily Mail).

Comment Re:Let's just skip right to 1984 (Score 2) 167

The terrorists in the Paris attack were known to the security services.

This almost always seems to be the case: the security services don't need more mass surveillance, they need to act on the intelligence they already have; they don't need a bigger haystack to find the needles they already have in front of them.

The proposals by the British government (the civil servants behind the scenes, that is, impressing it upon the clueless "here today, gone tomorrow" politicians, who propose it to every bunch that comes along until they get what they want) are ludicrous and will be abused.

Having Mike from Bromford's internet history stored for a whole year won't help them catch a single fucking terrorist, but it will help they shut him the fuck up if he starts campaigning against Fracking in his neighbourhood once the party's donors (the Frackers) start complaining about how effective his campign is.

The UK is becoming an ever greater, scary, over-arching surveillance state. The other shoe just hasn't dropped yet for the vast majority of people.

Comment Re:In line with current US thinking (Score 1) 190

>Some might have their voting rights revoked for felonies (to stop them from supporting the legalization of their crime, which was a serious problem in the distant past)

You mean like how large corporations lobby (ans outright bribe) politicians to do the same. They have a cute word for it - they call it "deregulation"; maybe that's where those darn (imaginary) enfranchised criminals were going wrong - not enough euphemism!

Comment Re:The contriversial parts in brief. (Score 1) 115

>bringing the judiciary into the issuing of warrants for digital searches and interception is a good thing

It doesn't do that though.

The warrant is issued by the politician, the judge merely assesses whether it's all been done according to the offical proceedures in place; the judge doesn't determine whether it's a legit target or is proportionate or anything.

The politicians and their corporate sponsors are still fully in charge.

Comment Re:Umm (Score 1) 370

One dollar, one vote.

The dollar of a billionaire is equal to the dollar of the homeless person!

That's the way the 'democracies' of the USA (and UK, increasingly) operate.

Some might say it was a coup by the oligarchy. Some might say our supposed democratic representatives are traitors to the people.

I would find it hard to disagree.

Comment Re:How do they define GM? (Score 1, Insightful) 330

What happens when a GMO is released into the wild is irreversible genetic pollution of non-modified organisms.

The fact of the matter is there is NO science about how these GMOs interact in nature when left to their own devices, free to cross-pollinate other organisms. That kind of wilfull blindness is engaged in by companies whose goals are not science, but which are solely the pursuit of profit ( via omonopolistic wnership of genetic material).

As for your reductio ad absurdum argument about the non-dangers of "foreign" DNA: how does such an argument stack up against "foreign DNA" when it's wrapped up inside "invasive species"?

Not very well I would assert.

We've barely got our heads around the problems of plastic bags: from bags to the sea, where it's broken down, which is then eaten by microscopic organisms, which is eaten by larger ones which, quelle surprise! ends up inside us. Did we forsee that when we wrecklessly cast these plastic bags about the place? Did we hell.

Such wanton disregard and ignorance for the consequences of our actions seesm to be the human way. Wrapping up the persuit of profits with the guise of LIMITED science and subjecting the genetic material of the entire ecosystem to a vast experiment is not a sound, rational or wise thing to do.

Comment Re:Can steam, EA, ubisoft , etc black list you (Score 1) 74

Well, a "charge back" is not the same as a refund request.

A 'charge back' means calling your Credit Card company and telling them to refuse the payment, cutting out any dialogue with the store you bought goods from. This is entirely different to going to that store and requesting a refund and you can't conflate the two things.

Long computations which yield zero are probably all for naught.