Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 351

I've said this a few times on this thread already, so I apologise if I'm repeating myself, but there is no evidence so far that he was either radicalised, brainwashed and recruited, or that his attacked had anything to do with Islam. It may have been the case, but there is so far no evidence of it.

It is not uncommon for people to find religion in prison (has no-one watched HBO's Oz!) but it doesn't automatically mean that he was some kind of Islamic fanatic.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 351

I'm not sure what the larger point is that you're trying to make. It seems like you are trying to suggest that Islam is incompatible with western culture and values, but in order to do this you find it necessary to assume (or at least claim) that Adrian/Khalid changed his name explicitly to break his ties with his British heritage.

In order to sustain this claim, you have to believe that people can have an identity that is only one dimensional - that someone can't be both a devout Muslim and a British patriot at the same time (as well as having many other identities).

Why can't a person be a Muslim and honourable Brit (or American) at the same time?

The subsequent claim you make about a similar case with a man changing his name to a Russian variant is not equivalent because Russia is a country whereas Islam is not - changing your name to a Russian name is an explicitly political (or at least a politically tinged cultural) act, whereas changing your name to an Islamic one is not a political act (unless it is explicitly done for political rather than religious reasons, i.e. it can be but it isn't necessarily so).

I don't dispute that some Muslims living in western nations can and do put their Islamic culture above that of their country's. I just don't see why that is automatically the case here.

Finally, the slightly childish claim to be the victim of unfair treatment at the end of your post is both unnecessary and counter productive - it makes your (already weak) argument easy to dismiss as being born of resentment rather than conviction

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 351

He was born in Kent (south-east England), and his name was Adrian. Absolutely nothing about his situation (his upbringing, his recent history, what the police investigation has so far uncovered) suggests that your plan is relevant to the attack last Wednesday.

In addition, how do you enforce and assess such a requirement, that people "become citizens of that country in heart and soul". In a native white middle class Englishman, born in Leicester to British parents, and I'm not sure that I feel British in my heart and soul, I'm not sure what it means. Maybe it is more obvious if you're an American, but British people don't really have this swearing allegiance to the flag type of patriotism, it isn't at all natural to us.

Comment Re:Why the focus on communication tech? (Score 1) 351

I haven't checked the news this afternoon so maybe there have been further developments, but when they were discussing this subject on the BBC radio news this morning, it was clear that the police only new he had been active on WhatsApp in the minutes before the attack - they did not know if he had received a message, or sent one, or done neither.

It suggests to me that they don't have his phone.

Comment Re:Why the focus on communication tech? (Score 1) 351

It has to be said that there is so far no evidence that this was done because of Islam.

It is known that he converted to Islam, and he had travelled to Saudi Arabia, so I am not saying it is impossible that he was motivated by some nonsense made-up understand of Islam, but as of the current investigation there is no evidence that he did it for that reason.

It could just as well be that he is a manic depressive and had just been dumped and wanted to go out on a bang, for all we know.

Comment Re:Well duh. (Score 3, Insightful) 115

The reason is that an anti-particle is a particle with opposite charge (both electric and colour) compare to its partner. So an anti-electron has opposite charge to a normal electron, and an anti-quark has opposite colour-charge and electric charge to a normal quark.

A photon does not have any charge, so an anti-photon would have identical properties to a normal photon - they would be identical, and so it makes no sense to talk about them as being different entities.

Comment Re:Seize it! (Score 1) 302

The great majority would do what people always do when given shares - they would immediately sell them to the highest bidder. Once the shares were on the secondary market it would not take long for a majority owner to emerge again.

The net overall effect would be no change in the ownership breakdown (i.e. a small group of big investors would still be in control) but each share would just be worth less.

Comment Re:I love the UK ... (Score 1) 135

That purpose is served by general elections. The Lib Dems went against many of their campaign promises after the 2010 GE, and look at them now after the 2015 GE, they are dead, only 8 MPs.

Like with most of these things, the problem isn't a moral failing with the politicians - they're just part of a system playing out their role. The problem is the lack of engagement from the electorate. If the politicians really thought that the electorate would punish them for their actions they wouldn't behave the way they do, but as it is they know that whatever betrayal we are talking about this week the electorate will have forgotten about it next month, let alone by the time of the next GE.

By the way, your plan of a 'no faith' option for the public would be disastrous - it would force politicians to constantly be trying to do everything they could to buy good will from the electorate - constant give aways, tax cuts, extra spending, etc. anything they could do win support at any cost. They wouldn't be able to focus on good governing because they would be overwhelmed with keeping their support above a certain level, while their opponents' only job would be getting it below that level.

Government would come to a halt, and it would be a perpetual election campaign.

Comment Re:Huh who knew? (Score 1) 609

Parliament is not the government, no. The government is the executive, formed out of members of that party who have the most seats in parliament (or more technically correct, that group of MPs who can command the confidence of the House of Commons, which is almost always the party who have the majority of seats).

Parliament passes and approves legislation, but does not perform any executive functions.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 143

Correct. There is no concept of Class Action here in UK law. As HP Hal says, this is a ruling against Uber as a whole (although they have immediately appealed, so let's wait and see).

The interesting aspect is what happens to other similar businesses - Deliveroo is a similar large 'gig-economy' company here in Britain, so how will they react?

Slashdot Top Deals

Have you reconsidered a computer career?

Working...