Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Of course it's "lawful" (Score 1) 169

by rich_hudds (#46286773) Attached to: High Court Rules Detention of David Miranda Was Lawful

Why shouldn't prisoners be allowed to vote? Unless a person's citizenship is stripped, they should always retain the right to vote.

To be clear, I'm aware that the US has the same laws, but I've always felt them antithetical to a free and democratic society.

This is especially true in a world where no citizen can be aware of all of the laws and in many cases the laws actually conflict.

Well our elected parliament has decide they shouldn't.

Seems to me that elected representatives should make the law not judges.

Prisoners voting in the UK also poses specific problems as we vote in relatively small constituencies and some of our prisons are very large. You might end up giving prisoners a disproportionate amount of influence if they were in a swing seat.

We also send far fewer people to prison than the USA so the ones that are in there are almost certainly toerags.

Comment: Re:Only in America (Score 2) 1431

by rich_hudds (#45974787) Attached to: Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie
Can only get latest figures for both countries from 2008, USA has 5 times the UK population:

UK fatal stabbings 270
UK fatal shootings 53

USA fatal stabbings 1,897
USA fatal shootings 9,484

Seems like the UK stabbing rate is quite a bit lower than the USA even though we are really frustrated by not being able to shoot one another.

Comment: Re:As an organiser of events. (Score 5, Insightful) 469

by rich_hudds (#45774417) Attached to: Is the World Ready For Facial Recognition On Google Glass?
Humans aren't designed to have full recall, even actors generally dislike watching their own performances.

Imagine being able to watch you whole life, it could cause massive mental problems.

How would you ever get over a broken heart if you could replay all of your happiest moments alongside the mistakes you'd made.

Recording our lives is just asking for a tsunami of unforeseen consequences.

Comment: Re:This is frightening (Score 1) 312

Surely you'd expect there to be lots of civilisations at different stages, not just one that is ignoring us and hiding.

The idea that there are only two civilisations in the universe is far less likely than there being just one in my opinion.

Also, although it is probably unwise to extrapolate too much from ourselves, any civilisation is likely to be made up of beings that either evolved via natural selection, or were designed by beings that evolved. As such they are likely to have a sense of morality, as we do, and to be interested in the welfare of other creatures, as we are.

I don't think a civilisation that could mine stars would just hide from everyone else.

Comment: Re:Sounds so wrong (Score 1) 392

by rich_hudds (#45595985) Attached to: App Detects Neo-Nazis Using Their Music
No one is arguing that some Japanese did terrible things before and during the war. It doesn't justify dropping nukes or fire bombing their cities.

I'm British and we are (mostly) pretty ashamed of the way we bombed German cities.

I can understand how we ended up doing it but that doesn't excuse it.

Comment: Re:News for Nerds... (Score 1) 710

by rich_hudds (#45572917) Attached to: Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools

If you look at scientific scholars you will find a diverse array of religious beliefs

Strictly speaking that is true. However scientists are much more likely to have no religious belief than their native population.

Even in the USA, that weird outlier of religiosity amongst the developed world, only about a third of scientists claim to have any religious beliefs.

Comment: Re:May they burn in hell. (Score 1) 510

Doesn't that back up my implication that they're a bad idea then? They're so difficult to change that you force the elected representatives of the current population to bend the rules. Better to allow flexibility in the first place and allow everyone to scream if a bad change is proposed.

The second amendment to the US constitution seems destined to cause huge problems in my opinion. Cheap weapons / guns are going to be designed that can take out an entire room with the press of a single trigger. Will these be allowed? If not why not?

Setting down your position in stone is always going to be caught out by changes in technology, society and so on.

Part of me wants a constitutional right to Free Speech here in the UK, but in practice we do ok with a tradition of Free Speech that informs our current lawmakers. I admit some of our more egregious laws to do with hate speech are an abomination but I suspect they'll be repealed should they ever be shown to genuinely curtail proper debate of issues.

Any kind of set in stone right is bound to butt up against another supposed right, a constitution just causes paralysis.

Of course I may be wrong, the USA is doing pretty well although coming from an Old World country I'd have to say that it's still early days for the US.

"If John Madden steps outside on February 2, looks down, and doesn't see his feet, we'll have 6 more weeks of Pro football." -- Chuck Newcombe