Manhattan 1984 545
Etherwalk writes "The New York Times is reporting on developments in the quest to charge driving fees for all vehicles headed below 86th Street in Manhattan. Notably absent from any part of the discussion is that a record is made of every car or truck that enters, together with the vehicle ownership information and the date and time of travel — either as part of EZ-Pass or in license-plate photos taken for subsequent billing."
Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly why things like this are a problem -- and one would think Germans, of all people, would recognize the potential for abuse. All it takes is a new leader with popular support and a few minor legal changes to launch a fascist regime. That's exactly what happened in Germany before -- millions upon millions of people died because of that.
Germany, Britain
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, in some large citi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Funny (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going on the presumption you have never been to Manhattan so I'll try not to make too much fun of you.
First, the only way anyone can speed in Manhattan, during normal business hours, is if they are on a bike. Traffic is for all intents and purposes, a crawl during the day. There are a few minor exceptions such as Fifth Ave or so where, if you time the lights correctly and are going the correct speed, you can hit all the green lights. But then, so does everyone else in the pack you're traveling with so it's a zero gain.
Second, reducing the number of vehicles below 86th Street in Manhattan will have a very negligible effect on pollution. Considering Manhattan is across the river from New Jersey, and NJ is known for its concentration of industrial and chemical businesses, guess what happens when the wind blows from the west? Not to mention the sheer amount of grime that has built up over the decades which goes airborne in the hot weather (as we recently experienced).
Finally, one of many reasons the Founding Fathers of my country decided to part ways from merry old England was because of privacy. In those times, the Crown could send troops or other officials into your home on a whim, without a warrant, just to see if you were doing anything wrong. It was the Crown, it could do what it wanted. That is why there is that part in our Constitution which specifically says the government must get a warrant to do a search.
So no, giving up our right to privacy (despite Scalia saying it doesn't exist) is not a good trade off. Granted, the vast majority of the unwashed masses don't know squat about their rights except three; right to free speech, right to religion and right to bear arms, but even then they're too brainwashed and kept in a perpetual state of fear to realize that all the other rights our Founding Fathers wanted us to have are essentially null and void at this time.
Maybe you don't mind being tracked everywhere you go but I know I do. If someone wants to know where I was at a particular date and time, they can ask me. If I think it's a legitimate question, I'll answer them. If not, it's none of their business.
I know I've said this before but James Madison nailed it when he said: If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why anti-conjestion schemes such as this won't work. If traffic is already so horrible, anyone is has an easy option to avoid the area is already doing it. Adding an $8 charge will provide only a little additional motivation. Many people have no choice; they are in that part of town and they need their car or truck for a good reason. The rest have already decided that the cost of sitting in traffic (and probably parking) is still wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the surface that's a true statement. In reality it is not.
First off, at least in many states in the US, a person has a right to face his accuser and his accuser cannot be a machine. Machines would be presumed to be correct unless a malfunction could be demonstrated and it's far too easy to prevent such a demonstration. Furthermore, machines are too easily rigged to generate false
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between voluntarilly giving up your privacy and being *required* to do so though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm as averse to surveillance as anyone around here, but there are certain places, certain densely populated places that are so valuable to our existence as a country, that it makes sense so be aware of who's moving multi-ton machines through there. It's not like we don't know that there a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, how does this qualify as having to do with Our Rights Online?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
With comprehensive vehicle tracking, all he has to do is suborn someone with access to EZ-Pass records.
Too hypothetical? Then consider something that's already happened, divorce lawyers using EZ-Pass records [csmonitor.com].
Agreed, though, calling it 1984 is hyperbole as long as there are feasible alternatives to having an EZ-Pass.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, no. That's like saying the sentence "Microsoft is a monopoly" is hyperbole while alternatives to Windows exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can still be a monopoly, while there are alternatives - this is a statement of fact. (Economics)
Saying that Manhattan is like 1984 is in a opinion. It clearly is not a book, and it is debatable the level that it resembles that regime in that book. This is the point that skipped over your head.
You can't compare the two things, because they are different. (logic)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
you have to understand that driving is not necessary in places like new york. don't want to be tracked, don't drive. people who use the ez pass do it out of choice. you aren't required to use one on the highways. you can just pay cash at the tolls and not be tracked. or if you're still worried, take the bus or train. driving a car is not a necessity or requirement, it's a luxury.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is bliss, Darklye, isn't it?
You just may want to have a look at Germany. You might or might not remember the fuzz about the German "Toll Collect" system introduced a couple of years ago. A definitely overblown system being able to measure the car, count axles, shooting fotos, talking to board computers etc.
Everyone thought that this was a crazy amount of technology thrown at a problem so simple as collecting toll. Everyone laughed at the tech consortium which was not able to deliver in time
First voices arose why the contracts were not publicly viewable. No freedom of information for this very contract... Still everyone insisted that this technology will solely be used for collecting toll.
Meanwhile, things changed. A total surveillance infrastructure being able to track individual cars not only with the help of the installed board computer, but just by mere picture recognition (mind you, Germany introduced machine-readable using OCR fonts -- of course all for the sake of increased security against plate counterfeiting -- plates already in the 90s). And while the law still is active that the infrastructure may be solely used for toll collecting, it gets constant fire -- and it will probably only take another legislature period until it falls and finally, all the authorities will also have access to this data.
Your turn, Mr. Spock.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
London 1984? ;) (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you too can look forward to people using fake license plates to avoid charges, or people who have been nowhere near the area being charged and/or fined because the number plate recognition software read a letter or number wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Duplicate plates seems a bad idea ... (Score:2)
I would expect that duplicate plates would be a poor strategy. It should not be hard for a computerized system to notice the same plate has been seen at two different location and alert the police.
Another common technique to use if you don't want to actually break the law is to re
Motorbicycles are exempt anyway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
number plate recognition software read a letter or number wrong
We have these speed cameras here in Australia which measure your speed over a distance by recording your travel time between two points and correlating rego plates. It had been assumed that they used some kind of OCR until a bus driver got charged with going 153 km/h (impossible for that type of bus) because the system confused plates with transposed digits, ie, AB != BA.
So is our software dyslexic? Perhaps not.
Re:London 1984? ;) (Score:4, Funny)
I'm especially amused by the people walking around London with car number plates printed across their T-shirts (yes, the cameras do pick them up and charge people.) Unlike displaying a fake plate on your car, wearing a T-shirt with a number plate printed on it is not illegal.
This is relatively benign ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically this is already feasible by ensuring that every single vehicle is equipped with a GPS receiver and a transponder that transmits its identity and its itinerary (in time and space} to collection stations.
As long as there is no congestion, and there are sufficient funds to keep all roads in good condition, the question doesn't appear. It becomes very different however when congestion starts blocking the grid, and when it's hard to find enough money for maintenance (of bridges for example}.
Under current conditions however, there is a strong incentive to toll. And yes ... there are privacy aspects.
Where electronically transmitted itineraries could be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping, someone has to do the billing ... and that someone can only do that if they can link the vehicle with a driver. And hence they will also be able to link vehicle, diver, and itinerary.
It's not quite there yet, but the signs are that it's only a matter of time. Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening.
After all ... what's privacy in the face of financial incentives?
But rest assured ... there probably will be a capped-fee paying option for those who really don't want their movements tracked and who can afford to pay the national maximum road price per mile where- and whenever they drive. Those subscribes don't need to submit their itineraries ... their subscriber ID will do.
The only snag is that the maximum road price will be about 20$ per mile. If your car does 50 mph, that would be 1000$ per hour maximum. So anyone willing (and able} to pay 365 x 24 x 1000$ per year would be allowed un-metered driving any time and any place. Anybody else will have to submit their itineraries and pay a road-use charge.
Oh yes ... and don't bore us with complaints that you already pay gasoline tax. What you *pay* in unimportant. What counts is the difference between what's needed for upkeep and congestion management and what's currently available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My problem is that there should be enough money already if it wasn't depleted by unrelated projects and over expenditures. It is unreal what most states collect in fuel taxes only to find their road and highway budget to be a minuscule percent of it. New York pockets 38 cents fo
Re:This is relatively benign ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, such fine granularity costs.
Back in the 19th Century, there were plans to set up an elaborate system of charging people to post letters according to size, weight and distance travelled -- until someone worked out that all measuring and calculating would actually end up contributing more to the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad thing is that the road tax (coupled with insurance costs) is a disincentive to be fuel efficient. If, like me, you need a van for weekends, the cost of taxing and insuring 2 vehicles means you're more likely to just drive that horribly inefficient van around all week rather than getting a more efficient car for your daily commute to work.
And now the government wants to introduce p
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Make it hurt to not take public transport.
I agree in principle, but the New York City subway and bus systems are horribly overtaxed. Train platforms get dangerously full come rush hour, and trains themselves can't usually keep up with the load. That's on a good day; on a bad day [reuters.com] all hell breaks loose. Wasn't a fun commute, that one.
Triv
Re: (Score:2)
Revenue or Surveillance? (Score:2)
This appears to be a product of the thinking that the "market can regulate anything". Everywhere there is congestion, plans seeking to regulate it through differential charging are springing up all over the place. The revenues typically more than cover the cost of implementation in their first year. My opinion is that these schemes just take yet more money from the average Joe who works, because he typically doesn't have any choice as to where and when he drives when commuting to work - tra
We already have this in the UK (Score:3, Informative)
The system works reasonably well, but it doesn't really stop people driving in the "congestion" zones and most people really dislike the system, for example, if you don't realize you've driven through a congestion charging zone you end up with a bill in the post for more than it would normally cost (you get discounts for paying same-day or prior to entering the zone).
Now - the mayor is proposing to charge different rates based on what type of car you have - small effecient compacts would pay nothing or next to nothing, while massive SUVs or anything with a 3+ liter engine would pay upto £25 GBP per day ($50 USD).
The most likely outcome of this? Poorer people will use public transport, while for the richer bigger fines will just affirm their social status, or make them consider getting smaller cars.
Oh - and I'm not mentioning the use of the system to track criminals, bail jumpers or "potential terrorists", because it's happening frequently and is just another way that the government is abusing the powers they gave themselfs by-proxy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm, I worked in London at the time the charge was introduced, and for a couple of years after. I noticed a big difference in the amount of traffic on the roads. I happen to like the system, but then I don't tend to habitually drive into London (because I'm not insane).
Re:We already have this in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Traffic has been reduced by 26% at the last count, so it has in fact stopped some people driving in the congestion zones, as intended. 'Reductions in congestion inside the charging zone over the whole period since the introduction of the scheme now average 26 percent. ' - from the 2007 report of Tfl.
I believe this is the intended effect, I doubt very much people would use fines as status symbols (proof of this?), and if they do, their stupidity would fund further public transport. No one who is poor in London can afford a car anyway (if you can afford a car in London, you have to pay parking, road tax, and fuel, not to mention upkeep), so they'll be happier with improved public transport.
As for the surveillance aspect - I'd be more concerned about their efforts to extend the length of time the police can hold people without trial (currently being misused to hold protesters against airport expansion), and routine use of torture [amazon.co.uk] (though thank goodness its use in court has been banned, much to the UK government's chagrin). Potential tracking of road use is the least of our worries.
Re: (Score:2)
I use a car in London but I'm not not very well off... How could this be...?! Actually, I choose not to live in London itself - as do a large number of car users in the capital for whom it's not a practical option to use public transport due to insane cost and time required being even greater than private car ownership.
~Pev
Re: (Score:2)
Which isn't exactly a bad outcome now, is it?
I have no problem with this kind of thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Whilst I agree there must be safeguards, it seems that every day there are crimes solved, prevented or swiftly responded to by this kind of technology.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_telev
from the FA above:
"Claims that they reduce or deter crime have not been clearly borne out by independent studies[2], though the government claims that when properly used they do result in deterrence, rather than displacement. One clear effect that has been noted is a reduction of car crime when used in car parks. Cameras have also been installed in taxis to deter violence against drivers, and also in mobile police surveillance vans. In some cases CCTV cameras have become a target of attacks themselves. Middlesbrough council have recently installed "Talking CCTV" cameras in their busy town-centre. It is a system pioneered in Wiltshire which allows CCTV operators to communicate directly with the offenders they spot. This idea is first known to have appeared in George Orwell's famous novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.
The use of CCTV in the United States is less common, though increasing, and generally meets stronger opposition. In 1998 3,000 CCTV systems were found in New York City. There are 2,200 CCTV systems in Chicago.
The most measurable effect of CCTV is not on crime prevention, but on detection and prosecution. Several notable murder cases have been solved with the use of CCTV evidence, notably the Jamie Bulger case, and catching David Copeland, the Soho nail bomber. The use of CCTV to track the movements of missing children is now routine.
After the bombings of London on 7 July 2005, CCTV footage was used to identify the bombers. The media was surprised that few tube trains actually had CCTV cameras, and there were some calls for this to be increased.
On July 22, 2005, Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station. CCTV footage has debunked some police claims. Because of the follow-up bombing attempts the previous day, some of the tapes had been supposedly removed from CCTV cameras for study, and they were not functional. The use of DVR technology may solve this problem."
In the UK the police are building up a large DNA database from everybody charged with a criminal offence (now nearly 5m entries) this solves crimes regularly. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3232744.stm [bbc.co.uk] as an example.
Bottom line, I have no problem with this technology if safeguards are in place and it makes the streets a safer place to walk.
The problem is .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, imagine the same systems in the hands of a major corporation. Now imagine that the corporation has very few legal restrictions on what it does. Now imagine you have pissed them off.
If that didn't scare you, you have a serious lack of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, yeah, good one.
Re: (Score:2)
Something to hide or not is by n means a reason to discount an objection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good then you'll have no problem submitting DNA(blood and hair sample), fingerprints, and psycholgical evaluation. Don't worry about a list of known associates since you will have video and sound recorders and gps surgically implanted. Don't worry, we'll use the same safeguards as the traffic system. Also please keep a journal of any thoughts you have.
Unless, of course, you have som
Re:I have no problem with this kind of thing (Score:5, Informative)
But before you go off on one and start ranting lets look at the facts...
From the Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/usi
"Any intrusion on personal privacy is proportionate to the benefits that are gained.
By the end of 2005, about 200,000 samples had been retained that would have been destroyed before the 2001 change in legislation. 8,000 of these samples matched with DNA taken from crime scenes, involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murders and rapes.
In 2005-06 45,000 crimes were matched against records on the DNA Database; including 422 homicides (murders and manslaughters) and 645 rapes."
Thats 45 thousand crimes in one year. Think about that for a while.
And an anti database view: http://www.genewatch.org/HumanGen/Publications/Re
"Errors and false DNA matches have led to miscarriages of justice, and these can create major difficulties for those wrongfully convicted because, like fingerprint evidence, DNA is widely regarded as absolutely conclusive, meaning that those without strong alibi evidence will tend to be presumed guilty. At the moment the DNA database itself can be viewed largely (but not entirely) as a growing suspect list that is mainly used to check samples from new and unsolved crime, but the existing data can be (and has been) used for broader purposes, and the UK practice of retaining the sample as well as the data allows it to be used for further testing for other purposes as the science develops.
We're seeing glimpses of what is possible with familial testing, which establishes links to family members where the suspect's DNA might not be on the database, and although the first instance of this was viewed as a coup, if used widely the procedure would find relatives you didn't know about, and reveal that people weren't related to the people they thought they were. So what have you got to hide? You don't know, and maybe you don't want to know."
--- I am *not* parroting a government line. Nor am I proposing GATACCA. I am simply stating that to dismiss this without thought on quaint and paranoid lines seems irrational and foolish. I realized that this viewpoint would run counter to many of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a tool, like any other tool it throws up a number of false positives, to use it properly is to then screen the positives eliminating them one by one.
- this man has an alibi
- this man died last week
- this man was pictured on CCTV (!) somewhere else
- this man's DNA was found on scene, new the victim, blood on his clothing, he has motive, refuses to disclose his movements and recently washed his car seat. lets investigate him a bit more. A DNA match does not mean his is guilty,
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell did this get modded "insightful"? All apodyopsis is doing is parroting the administration party line that privacy is about concealing wrongdoing. This is not what privacy is about at all.
Here's [wired.com] an excellent piece by Bruce Schneier that explains in more detail jus
Re: (Score:2)
The proposed systems are nothing more then a tool to help solve crimes - they do not watch your every move in the privacy of your own home a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If this lack of privacy is so good for the citizens, why don't MPs eat their own do
Catching up (Score:4, Funny)
George Orwell is one of the greatest British heroes to ever live, and now his ideas are spreading around the world. This must surely be England's finest hour.
But will it aid in traffic flow? (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously one major problematic scenario is law enforcement going wild with such a resource. You would hope there would be a secure system to prevent abuse, but it creates the infinite problem of who will watch the watchers, who will watch the watchers watching the watchers, etc. As long as the system does not needlessly collect data (such as a blanket camera system that tracks ALL movements within the zone) I dont think most people would mind. You have to remember that even at tollbooths your car is caught on camera (security cameras). True, security cameras dont have the retention this system would require (for billing purposes it would be atleast a month depending on monthly/quartly/yearly pricing) but again, imposes limitations on the use of such data could aid in ensuring the privacy of drivers.
Sorry to go anti-1984 here, but this system is far less frightening than say a CCTV blanket system like that already purposed for many downtown locations around the US, and already in wide spread use in England. While the article was scant on the operational details of the system, it felt like it was going to be used solely to track motorists entering an area and just for billing purposes (as much as we can trust that!).
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem with toll booths is that they only really work when the toll is on a single road - bridges, motorways, entrances to airports etc, not on an area with multiple entrances like part of Manhattan, or central London or Singapore.
Huh? (Score:2)
I go through 6 toll plazas a day. 90% of the time, I have to drop to about 65mph to do so. (10% of the time, something stupid is going on.)
Don't get me wrong. I hate paying tolls. I think roads should be free to use. The privacy problems with having an EZ Tag scare the crap out of me, though not enough to make me give it up.
However, criticism that toll booths create a stop and go traffic nightmare are overblown and unfair. Old toll installations
Stockholm running it already (Score:3, Interesting)
The information is kept until payment has been made, when it's removed from the system. With only 2 weeks to pay not much information can be recovered from the database.
With all the alarming reports about climate change and greenhouse gases it's probably a good idea to implement road tolls all over the world. In Stockholm environment friendly cars don't have to pay the road tolls. What is defined as a environment friendly car is subject to change every year as development goes forward.
where have I heard this idea before? (Score:2)
What I don't get (Score:5, Interesting)
Rerouting congestion does not solve the problem. NIMBY all over again. Those cars have to go somewhere. And as for the folks who think that public transportation is good enough, that could be viewed as another freedom taken away. Folks drive for many reasons, one being a sense of going where they want, when they want.
How is this any different... (Score:2)
What changes? (Score:2)
Doing it properly (Score:2)
To take where I live as an example. I can pick a manually operated lane and pay via coin toss or handing cash to a human being. These lanes do not record anything unless you try to blast through without paying.
I am not 100% positive such an anonymous alternative is required by law, but I'm fairly certain of it.
If opting for a transponder to avoid having to stop, there are strict limits as to how long identifiable information may be s
i live in times square (Score:5, Insightful)
and then i turn to slashdot, and i find a bunch of spin that frankly doesn't get the situation at all. a lot of the discussion here is about accepting a loss of freedom
loss of freedom?! you mean GAIN of freedom. the oppressive fascist presence here being CARS, not the government!
hello, i live here, i think i understand better than the average slashbot about what is going on with this plan. i don't see it as mourning a loss of freedom. i see it as celebrating a loss of CARS
let's put it this way: in the fight against what you perceive as an intrusive government and loss of privacy, try to understand what people on the ground are actually thinking about the situation, and pick the right fight. don't misinterpret the situation and come charging in horns ablaring about this issue or that issue that frankly, no one is actually concerned with and doesn't even apply
or rather, for the sake of argument, let's take the absurd position that the slashbots here are correct about this being an intrusive government issue and not a clogged traffic issue. ok, well then, now you understand that those who live in midtown manhattan welcome the devilish scheme of emperor palpatine to take away their freedoms under the guise of a bait and switch maneuver that the issue is something else entirely. fine: now try to understand what emperor palpatine is baiting us with, and use that issue as a starting point for your own words. the point being, it doesn't pay to march into a situation with the discussion already all figured out in your head without any input or attempt to persuade the people who are actually the targets of the plan in question
know your audience, speak to their concerns. or don't bother speraking at all. because they're not going to listen to you if you don't try to understand where they are coming from
Can we give "1984" a rest? (Score:4, Insightful)
People are right to be concerned about the government spying on them. But most of the intrusions that people are up in arms about is a long way from "1984" territory. Being added to a database every time you drive into Manhattan does raise privacy concerns, but it's many orders of magnitude away from the nightmare Orwell described.
Warning: it's illegal to follow the above Gutenberg Australia link if you live in the U.S. or some other country that has effectively made copyrights permanent. That's a bad thing, but it's not "Orwellian" either.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
land of the free indeed....
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
If "they" want to watch you, they can do it. That ability is not new, nor is it going anywhere. Attempting to attribute some lingering fear to the fact that you're visible to others in public is paranoid.
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Interesting)
My uncle was visited by ASIO for suspected terrorism related stuff. We're Muslim, and it's a tradition donate food to poor people. He runs a butcher, and so sent meat to a Middle Eastern based charity organization. They then sent it to a regional distribution center which then distributed it to various community groups, one of which was apparently on an Interpol watch list of some description. Despite the layer upon layer of distance, my uncle's house was raised, all computer data was copied and he was questioned (bear in mind he sent a bunch of dead sheep, not a briefcase of hard currency or blueprints for nuclear related widget thingies).
He was presented with a list of every phone call he'd made in the last 10 years or so, and every call overseas he was required to explain. We're from South Africa, and are of Indian descent. Being Indian with a bloody huge families we have, we have relatives all over the place, and so we make heaps of overseas phone calls. Eventually, they decided my uncle was harmless, and left him alone. Nonetheless, ever since then I've been gearing up to move to a country that is not in the Western Axis, as I am increasingly getting the feeling that we as Muslims just aren't welcome. Plus, I don't like the idea that someone, somewhere has access to all of my movements.
Oh, and if you're going to give me the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" line, please don't, I've heard it many times before and it sounds dumber each time I hear it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the so-called "western world" (I abhor that term... how do you divide a sphere in east and west?) needs a real kick up the backside.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easy! What is west from Greenwich is the western hemisphere, what is east from Greenwich is the eastern hemisphere.
Have you been sleeping during geography classes?
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of people in the UK are not right wing Sun reading racists, although some of us are and some of the more religiously inspired members of the Muslim community are really not interested much in integration.
If you actually want to do something to help both the right wing racists and the isolationist muslims it's best to see people as they actually are rather than relying on broad caricatures.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference to being in view in public, and having your whereabouts noted, and retrievable for all of eternity
Sorry, but here in the States, anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place, as long as there is no specific statute or ordinance in place prohibiting such activity (military bases, etc.) Property owners can prevent you from taking pictures while on their property; however, they cannot prohibit you from photographing any visible part of that property while on public land. Literally, I could stand on a street corner and photograph every license plate that passes, eve
read the post (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From new Hampshire's state revenue page:
"New Hampshire does not have a general sales tax or an income tax on an individual's reported W-2 wages. There are taxes on an individual's interest and dividends income, inheritance, business taxes, consumer excise taxes and other taxes as listed below. Fuel taxes are administered by the NH Dept. of Safety
papers, please (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love it if someone said that to me.
If someone did say that to me - a man, in this example - then I could ask him what his wife's favourite sexual position is, or which co-worker he would turn gay for, or which one person he would kill if he could get away with it.
I don't really care what his answers would be, but that's not why I'd want to ask. I would want that person to decide for himself whether he would tell me or not. If he doesn't feel comfortable telling me, or feels offended that I'd ask, he won't answer, even if he can. That's exactly the point.
If you've got nothing to hide, you really do have nothing to fear. This is true, for as far as it goes, and I'm sure the people who say it believe it. The catch is simple: everyone has something to hide, and not everyone realises it.
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Insightful)
In the real world, Christianity and Judaism have been usefully weakened so they don't pose as much of a threat. (I'm an atheist so I like none of them.) The idea that we should strive equally for some impossible ideal outcome as a matter of principle does not make intelligent social policy.
In which society, right now, would your rather live given the choice between predominately Christian, Jewish, or Muslim countries?
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've worked with many Muslims over the years. I've enjoyed working with them as much as I enjoy working with anyone. In *my* country, Muslims are certainly welcome. Are there murderous, extremist Muslims out there? Sure. And there's murderous, extremist people in every religion. (For example, see whitehouse.gov.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason for non-Muslims to want Muslims, because as believers they spread Islam.
Because all Muslims are just like those crazy brown guys you saw on 24 or Fox News. All Muslims do nothing but plot then act on plans for converting the world to Islam. There are no "normal" people who also happen to follow the faith of Islam. Of course, the same is true for all other religions. We don't want Jews because they sprea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"There is no reason for atheists to want religious people, because as believers they spread religion.
The spread of religion cannot be considered desirable by atheists because of the societies it creates.
Religions are exceptionally oppressive in practice, and practice trumps theory.
I've seen the best you can do even with massive wealth (the WORLD) and do not want MY world to be like that.
Many o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
SOME Muslim people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Islam against Western targets, and some Muslims have come right out and said there will be no peace until all the infidels are gone. It's not that Some Westerners feel threatened by Muslims, it's that we are threatened by some Muslims. Some Muslims are threatening our lives, our society, our way of life. Is it a surprise that you don't feel welcome?
Fixed it for you, seems you confused a group for a whole there for a bit.
This is the rational that got us into this whole damn mess in the first place, confusing whole swaths of people for small groups.
Some westerners do want to destroy the Muslim way of life, thus all westerners are a threat. See the fallacy?
Every group has a lunatic fringe who is hell bend on destroying all out groups. Does this make the superculture bad? No, it means the lunatic fringe is bad. Though I agree that the superculture sh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, once upon a time there was Inquisition so Christian people have committed heinous acts of terror in the name of Ch
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Interesting)
This happened at least ten years ago, so I'm not sure if video surveillance was the norm back then. I know now that all toll plazas here have cameras that record licence plates, but payment is still entirely manual - you pay with cash or credit card... the most automated means of passing is by swiping your credit card yourself in an express lane. But anyways. Because some toll plazas are on roads that are used daily for people to get to work and back, some of them offer concession cards to people living in the area to get a discounted rate. So, you pull up at the toll booth, hand in your concession card, the attendant swipes it, it registers the discounted fare, you pay, get your card back, and leave. What not many people knew, was that since you had to apply for these cards, and the cards were issued on a per vehicle basis (the card has to match the license plate to prevent fraud), the card has the vehicle details and registered owner details stored in its magnetic strip, and when the operator swipes your card to register your concession, the card details are logged in a database somewhere.
What happened was, this guy decided to murder his employee to cash in on a life policy that he had taken out in the employees name. He took his family 3-4 hours away to a casino resort for the weekend, and asked the employee to check on the house while he was away. While the family was asleep, he got in his car, drove back home, killed the employee and made it look like a break-in, drove back to the resort, and appeared very surprised and upset at the break-in and murder in his house when he returned. Although it was very suspicious and lots of evidence pointed to him, he did have the alibi of having checked in in person at the resort for the weekend. Except that he used his concession card when he drove through the toll each time, which recorded his car details and the date and time that he passed through.
These days, the discount you get for having a concession card is the equivalent of less than US$1... back then it would have been closer to around 10-20c US each trip. So, if he hadn't tried to save himself around 50c and paid the full toll price, he could have gotten away with murder.
I'm not trying to justify data recording at toll booths nor put them down. Just thought it was an interesting, somewhat related story.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW, New Yorkers, when they tell you that the London Congestion Chrage cut traffic by 20% they are LYING. The scheme was launched at the beginning of a school holiday when the traffic volume drops by over 15% anyway. They also promised that the £5 charge would NOT be raised - yet raised the charge to £8 when it became clear that the CC wasn't making enough money. The proposal is now to have a "congestion" charge based on the CO2 emissions of your car,
Re:who wants to go there? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you meant "the working class", and you're correct. Manhattan is full of working class individuals who clearly have an interest past that of which is providing the employment. If you meant otherwise, then your conflation of racial division with division in class and/or earning potential is the point of discussion, at which point any rational individual would have to disagree with your assessment.
Long since past that point (Score:2, Interesting)
Systems like this just empower society to cut out the cancer and get on with more productive things like work, socialising, and being able to relax in a home that isn't stripped bare, burned down, or riddled with bullet holes.
However the question is, is this system worth the loss of privacy? (not to mention the cost of actually running the thing!) Every thing you do to deter crime knocks some people out of the candidate list for committing that crime. If a crime is immoral (murder, rape, arson, stealing, ect) that knocks a good 90+% of your average educated population off the list. That combined with fear of being caught, punishment, being ostracized from everyone that you know removes another large chunk of the population from
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which shops? I had to laugh at the protests from Oxford Street shopkeepers when the congestion charge was first introduced. The hassle of parking in the West End far outweighs any perceived inconvenience of using public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
It's full, or at least was most weekdays before the congestion charge was introduced.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
No big deal?? I moved out of London because of the cost
Uh-hu. If you lived in London, you'd appreciate how expensive living here is, and that the congestion charge is inconsequential compared to the cost of a mortgage, or even renting a decent place. It's a paltry 8 quid a day and that's only if you happen to drive in to zone 1 (which is up to 20 GBP an hour for parking, and there are bugger all spaces, god knows why you'd even try) - and that's not including discounts.
It did noticeably cut congestion initially, but it's crept right back up again because the charge is so low (it costs far more if you actually want to park your car). Frankly, as Jeremy Clarkson has noted (tongue in cheek) it would need to be about 50 GBP a day to hold any hope of getting city boys to take any notice whatsoever. Even then that's going to be about the same as getting Taxi's about the place, and many will prefer the car.
I think it ought to be increased significantly (and given the narrow streets and the volume of people, closing off some of the road to traffic (or at least to buses only) would be a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived it Westminster you'd know you get a 90% discount because you are resident, most of Westminster is inside the zone. You left London because of the congestion charge my arse. So tell us, what was the real reason?
"If YOU lived in London you'd know that areas like Fitzrovia and Pimlico are now so depopulated that restaurants and corner shops are closing."
Bwahaha! I was in Charlotte Street last night, and couldn't
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fitzrovia, Westminister CC, who cares - it all sounds like nonce talk to me so why don't you to just cut out this girly cat fighting and give each other a big slobbery kiss on the lips like you're obviously both gagging to do, you damn southern pansies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up. And give Rudi "Disneyland" Guiliani a hard kick in the butt when you see him for making NYC what it is. I still love the town, and there are still interesting parts but some neighborhoods have lost their charm.
Ah, just wait till the economy isn't so great again...
-b.