EU Approves Unified Full Body Scanner Regulations 225
OverTheGeicoE writes "The European Union has adopted a proposal to regulate airport body scanners at Member State airports. No Member State or airport is obligated to use scanners, but if they do, the scanners must conform to new European Union standards. Here's a partial list: Scanners must not store, retain, copy, print, or retrieve passenger images; the image viewer must be in a remote location; passengers must be informed how the scanners are being controlled; and can opt out if they choose. Perhaps most importantly: X-ray scanners are banned 'in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety.'"
EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if someone would just kick UK out of EU. It's almost as bad as US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism. I do think these regulations are a good plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure you're not referring to "balance between socialism and capitalism" as it is in Northern Europe at the moment?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I am European and I do think the perfect government is a balance between Communism and Capitalism.
Actually I do believe the BEST government would use the good ideas from both and refuse to follow the ideologies and propaganda from both. For the record I am an European too (whatever it might mean these days).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.
The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now. We don't have laws against headscarfs and stuff either which is something. Even outside Europe now that Harper is in in Canada I think the UK is doing fairly well, we're certainly in a much better place than we were under Brown's authoritarian rule 2 years ago.
I suppose you can still hold a grudge over the UK for Iraq, but we haven't been there for a few years now, we're still in Afghanistan, like the rest of Europe. I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent. It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed. There's still a long way to go of course, but then, find me a country where there isn't.
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's horrendous, how dare the UK be one of the few countries in the EU capable of balancing it's books making it one of perhaps 2 or 3 economies in Europe whose AAA rating is perfectly safe.
+5 funny
The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan who is wide seen as a bug in search of a windshield.
Total Debt to GDP ratios [tinyurl.com]
Sorry to burst Your bubble but the bond market will discover this fact eventually.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, yes, but our currency has a picture of a real proper God's anointed Queen on it, not a bunch of abstract squiggles and random Godless squinty-eyes like the Monopoly money they use in Japan. There's your difference right there.
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Informative)
The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world. Only slightly below Japan
The "total debt to GDP ratio" may be only slightly below japan but the government debt is a MUCH smaller proportion of the total debt than with japan.
But more important than the amount of debt is what that debt is denominated in. If a government has debts denominated in their own currency they can order their central bank (in practice they probably won't even need to make the order) to offer them unlimited loans at a fixed interest rate so the only way they will default is if they chose to do so.
OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OTOH if a government has large debts denominated in a currency under outside control they are at the mercy of the countries that control those currencies. That is why greece and italy are in so much trouble, they sacrificed their financial sovereignty by joining the Euro.
Greece is in trouble because IT FUCKING LIED about its financial condition to the EU before adopting the Euro. Had they told the truth, the rest of the EU would have left them to rot (most probably). Italy didn't lie about its finances, they made real sacrifices to adopt the Euro, and frankly without it Italy would have been in for the worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those figures you point to are distorted by our disproportionately large financial sector. Which given that they're backed by gov.uk means that they actually have a vested interest in keeping our bond prices stable. As far as actually managing our government debt, we do quite well, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15717770
A big problem with both Italian (and French debt) is that a lot of it is short-term and constantly has to be renewed. Hence depending on the given prevailing market circumstances the
Re: (Score:2)
The UK actually have the second highest total-debt-to-gdp ratios in the world.
Your source appears to be nearly two years out of date. A lot has happened in that time, so I don't think we can read too much into those figures today.
Back then, a large chunk of that UK debt was down to the financial institutions in the City; the government debt level was towards the lower end on the chart. However, we can't see how much impact the various bail-outs have made from that data.
Re: (Score:2)
Your source appears to be nearly two years out of date. A lot has happened in that time, so I don't think we can read too much into those figures today.
Ups. My bad. The UK have in fact overtaken Japan by now in total debt to gdp.
Debt by nations [tinyurl.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that the UK economy hardly smells of roses, but there is one major difference in that if it's currently private-sector debt we're talking about, there is always another option, even if it has side effects that may not be desirable: you can let the big financial players who made bad investments lose their money and, if necessary, fail.
I don't understand enough serious economics and international politics to know why the big economic powers didn't do this right from the start, and whether there is a g
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't really matter when we have an actual plan to solve the problem that we've been following for a year now, unlike countries like the US and the Eurozone nations who are still actually trying to figure out what to do.
The bond markets don't care about the fact the problem is their, they care about the fact we're solving it. It's the nations that aren't tackling it that scare the shit out of them, that's why things are so bad for Greece and Italy right now - because they're still only just now tryi
Re: (Score:2)
"Which doesn't really matter when we have an actual plan to solve the problem that we've been following for a year now, unlike countries like the US and the Eurozone nations who are still actually trying to figure out what to do."
That doesn't matter anyway since this 'plan' has caused a near-dip into recession and actually slowed down the recovery...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's taken an axe to our deficit.
There's no point having 1% growth and maintaining a massive deficit, when we can instead settle for 0.5% growth and eliminate our deficit.
I don't like the Tories, but they're fiscally more sane than Labour who had it's hands over it's ears regarding the deficit and even now who's party members are harping on about how we should spend some more, increase the deficit for the sake of growth.
Our austerity measures aren't pleasant, but they're the sensible thing to do a
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that your deficit is going to GROW in near- and long-term since the revenues have fallen and you'd need even more austerity. In short, it is already an epic fail.
"Losing a year or two of 2 - 3% levels of growth over the next 20 years or so is much less of a big deal than running the risk of defaulting which would result in 10 - 20 years of lost growth and serious strife instead."
Who told you that an austerity just causes you to 'lose a few years'? It is going to lower the base of growth, and quite
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Not a FUD. Wanna bet?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15653282 [bbc.co.uk] - trade is flagging,
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt [ukpublicspending.co.uk] - debt is growing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/31/business-confidence-lowest-for-30-months [guardian.co.uk] - business confidence craters.
Deficits are not significantly affected.
However, economy has slowed down into almost a double-dip so lost revenue growth over 10 years would be more than "savings" from austerity.
So, remind me, what austerity program tries to achieve?
Re: (Score:2)
Since they are not part of the Euro, the UK can simply make some inflation (the old trusted way) and devalue themselves out of debt.
11 of each 10 keynesian economists say that works. We'll soon discover if they are right.
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any (Score:2)
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html [dailymail.co.uk]
That on top of having second highest debt to GDP ratio in the world (only Japan has worst record) and recent riots.
Re:Britain's violent crime record is worse than an (Score:4, Informative)
For some arbitrary definition of violent crime yes. We have a lower murder rate, lower levels of rape and so forth however which is arguably what matters more in terms of violent crime. I'd much rather put up with a slightly higher chance of being punched at the pub on a Friday night by a drunk if it means a drastically lower chance of just outright being shot dead next time I do my weekly shopping on a Saturday afternoon. Of course, avoiding both would be nice and I can't say either have affected me yet, but it illustrates the point.
I covered debt to GDP elsewhere, it's meaningless by itself, and the riots? are you kidding me? Britain has one set of riots over a few days for the first time in god knows how many decades and that's something that stands out? Countries like Spain, Greece, France and so forth have riots of that scale on a seemingly annual basis. France for example:
2005: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4413964.stm [bbc.co.uk]
2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2009_French_riots [wikipedia.org]
2010: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322441/France-riots-Demonstrations-pension-reforms-continue-ninth-day.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Yeah, I don't think Britain's riot situation is too much to worry about right now to be honest, if Britain can be criticised for having some kind of problem, it's sure as hell not riots.
Britain has a lot of faults, but fundamentally my point was simply that compared to other nations, there's certainly not any more, and in many cases an awful lot less to worry about here. Pulling random faults out the hat proves what exactly? That Britain is a somehow worse country in general than many others? No, it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah fucking manchester airport uses scanners and they're mandatory. pisstake. at least this is going to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I heard this was not true. You absolutely can opt out of being scanned at Manchester. Of course, if you do so, you'll also be opting out of catching your flight...
Alas, I suspect that the UK government will, if at all possible (and even if not), interpret the EU's requirement for the right to opt out of scanning in a similar fashion.
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Informative)
Gordon Brown gave up part of the rebate a few years ago, we still put far more in than we get out even with the rebate and always have. Europe does not by any measure pay for the UK, France's farming subsidies are the elephant in the room in this respect if anything.
The UK very much makes a loss in terms of pure money pumped into the EU vs. money returned via EU initiatives by a longshot, the benefit we get out (as is the case for others that put in more than they get out, like Germany) is easier access to the European markets so it comes back and pays for itself in terms of improved trade and better bargaining terms with the rest of the world as the EU can speak as one entity on many topics.
Personally I think it's worth it, but if EU nations want rid of us then have fun trying to fill the funding shortfall that's used to help the poorer Eurozone economies improve like Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania etc. I'm sure Germany will be more than happy to spend even more money financing the rest of Europe and France will enjoy being forced to give up it's farming subsidies.
No really, the UK is a backbone economy for the EU, like both France and Germany are. The EU would be massively weaker and poorer without it.
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Informative)
1) Germany (19.6 %)
2) France (18%)
3) Italy (13.9 %)
4) United Kingdom (10.4%)
5) Spain (9.6%)
Of course these numbers aren't too meaningful, because they don't track the indirect benefits that a member country enjoys for being in the EU. For example, the import fees paid by a country that is importing goods for China, appear as paid by that country in the balance, but they will actually be paid by the final customers of those goods in reality.
But you can read that the image of France being a burden for other member states because of its agriculture subsidies is wrong: they pay to the EU more than what they actually receive, and in particular they pay almost twice as much as the UK.
The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU. I think the UK shoud solve this problem by clearly asking their citizens if they really want to be inside the EU. If the answer is negative, then the UK should withdraw from the union and leave it to the states who are actually interested in its construction.
I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states.
The "two-speeds" union that is starting to delineate, with the members of the Euro zone having special government structures, might be a good step in this direction; but it's still too soon to tell.
Re:EU still has some sense left, compared to US (Score:5, Interesting)
It took a while to find the figures you cite, but I found them here. You've mistakenly, or dishonestly misrepresented them, they are not net contribution figures:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/headlines/content/20080605FCS31027/5/html/What-about-the-Net-Contributors%E2%80%9D [europa.eu]
Whilst the article is about net contribution it actually avoids the question and those specific figures merely state the amount paid in, not the net amount once returns are received. Once this is taken into account France's contribution drops drastically. Whilst France has improved it's net contribution in recent years you can see the disparity here from back in 2007 under net contribution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8036097.stm#start [bbc.co.uk]
Or the cold hard historical figures for every year between 1999 - 2007 here if you prefer:
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/ [eu-oplysningen.dk]
"The problem with the UK in the EU is not economic, it's their political dissent every time that an EU treaty is to be made. Which stems from the fact that probably, most of the UK population is against the EU."
I'm not sure what you mean here, most countries in the EU have a degree of euroscepticism, but the UK ratified the Lisbon treaty with far less hassle than many other countries that outright voted against it in it's original form. Do you not remember Ireland having to run the referendum on it twice because they said no the first time?
Whilst recent polls have shown 49% support leaving the EU and only 40% definitely staying in I don't think come a referendum we would leave, because these polls were commissioned against a background of Euroscepticism - UKIP and far right wing Tories stoking things up against the background of the Euro appearing on the verge of collapse. I think the fact they could still only muster 49% to leave in self interest commissioned polls against that background is quite telling. That's ignoring the fact any referendum would be backed by a campaign pointing out all the Tory/UKIP FUD and how it's actually about bringing back things like employment law so the average Joe can be forced to work more than 48hours in a week benefiting corporations and not the average citizen. Really, less than half against the background of potential Euro collapse and a massive one sided FUD offensive that's been led up to by a year or two long FUD offensive? that's pretty weak.
"I'd rather take an EU that is 10% poorer but that works, instead of one that never acts because every decision is shot down by the crossed vetoes of the member states."
And you think the UK is a stalling point here? really? You only have to look at the painfully slow inaction over the Euro to see the UK is far from Europe's worst offender in acting with haste, and Eastern European and Mediterranean nations bickering over past rivalries be it Cyprus blocking Turkey's entry, or the ex-Yugoslav nations blocking each other.
If I've learnt anything over the years it's that alternating opinions blocking legislation is almost always a good thing. When legislation is rammed through without care for minority opinions it's rarely good legislation, and when it's passed because everyone agrees it's generally good.
I'd like to see decreases euro-scepticism in our country and I think it'll come with time, but I think the UK being in the EU is far better for both the UK and the EU. It's mutually beneficial for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, mutual respect is the basis for any conversation. That said, if you have better data, show them. The ones you cite coming from the British public television are from five years ago, and still show France paying more than they receive, and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on.
Re: (Score:3)
"and thus I stilll don't see how they demonstrate that France needs UK's money to go on."
I never said this, I'm not claiming France is subsidised by the UK, I simply made the point that if someone is worried about UK rebate, then they should be even more concerned about French farming subsidies and that the UK most certainly does pay it's fair share, arguably more so than other members, rebate or not.
"The UK ratified the Lisbon treaty quickly because, unlike Ireland, they did not hold a referendum. Is your
Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Interesting)
In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)
Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does?
And that's why despite everything, I prefer being in the EU.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Despite everything, I think the EU is still the best place to live in the world.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Informative)
Nearly every time I read about the EU doing something that doesn't outright fuck over its citizens, I think to myself, "Man, they must have heard about how we're all about freedom and citizens rights and just ran with it." Is it a bad thing when a foreign entity better represents your home country's ideals than your actual home country does? I think that may be the case here.
Are you American? And are you claiming that freedom and citizens rights are an American invention? Because I am European, and we had such Freedom when you were just a couple of tiny villages we like to call colonies, and when the majority of the native Americans were still alive and thriving.
I'll give an example: the Dutch fight for freedom in the 16th/17th century. Already in the 15th century, the Dutch were free. Amsterdam was rules by citizens, not by a nobleman or clergyman. Citizens. And America hadn't even been discovered. And this idea spread throughout the entire country, which rebelled against the religious oppressive Spanish and became free.
Or how about the French revolution? English parliament? You do know that democracy was already in use in the ancient Greek times, do you?
If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.
should have used a different tone (Score:2)
If you're not American, then all the above is still true, but I should have used a different tone.
+1 Excellent use of pre-emptive after-the-fact diplomacy! :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uhh, you haven't heard of the American Eminent Domain laws have you? That is used to grab property and gun control laws are rife in most states. 'Live Free or Die' only applies to Wisconsin. The 'underground railway' has indeed been running for centuries From the USA To Canada, not the other way around.
The Statue of Libertas in New York, was a present from a Frenchman (G. Eiffel) and was probably meant as a joke...
Re: (Score:2)
The Acadians might beg to differ with regards to Canada.
And every year more people move from Canada to the USA than from the USA to Canada (and if we talk per capita the difference becomes much larger).
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that the Brits did expel most of the Acadians when they took over the maritimes, most of the Acadians came back and resettled under British rule. There's a reason that New Brunswick is the only province in the country that officially recognizes both French and English as official languages. Frankly, the Brits should have done the same thing to Quebec... we wouldn't have anywhere near the number of stupid problems caused by morons trying to rewrite history had that actually happened.... Quebe
Re: (Score:2)
I have serious doubts that 'most' went back to Canada.
I definitely remember from history class that a large percentage died in the expulsion (disease/boats going down) and that many did not return.
Granted I'm part cajun/acadian and the history books our schools picked on the subject may have been biased...
I'm not also not sure that great of records were kept so maybe no one really knows.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Informative)
Eminent domain.
Kelo v. City of New London decision.
Asset forfeiture (especially coupled with drug excuse).
Re: (Score:3)
So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US? The way the US is going it wouldn't surprise me that shit like this has happened in the 20th century, but I doubt very much stuff like this happened *under the full protection of the law* before FDR times.
Did you read the case the grandparent cited? Kelo v. City of New London [wikipedia.org] upheld (at the supreme court level) the right of the state to use eminent domain laws to transfer ownership of land between private parties. This ruling means that any use that can possibly be justified - however vaguely - as serving the public interest is legal according to the fifth amendment.
If your argument is that the USA has a bit of paper that protects your rights, but doesn't enforce it, and is therefore good, then I think
Re: (Score:2)
"So, please tell me, do you picture this happening in the US?"
Quite easily. Google for 'zoning laws'.
It probably won't lead to demolition of your house, you'll just be sued and forced to rebuild it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, most Americans have never heard of Locke these days, even though the so-called "American Ideals" are basically a restatement of the ideas he put on paper in the 16th century, and were acknowledged to be so by the founding fathers of his country.
Re: (Score:3)
you can have guns
You say that as if it was a great thing. What is so cool about everyone in a country with a nine-digit population (which statistically makes the percentage of insane people millions) being able to have deadly weapons with them at all times?
Personally, in that regard I feel much more secure in my country (which is in the EU, by the way) because people can carry guns if: (a) they work for the police, (b) they work for the army (and then not at all times) or (c) has been life-threatened, and a judge decides t
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Interesting)
And FYI, the French revolution came long after the American one. You'd have done better to talk about the French enlightenment, and better still to learn history before lecturing on it.
You do realize that the American revolution was actually a French revolution, right? Bought and paid for by the French, won by virtue of the fact that the British were too busy beating up the French, and led by military leaders who were trained by a French general (an openly gay one, at that). The Germans had a hand in providing some of the funding and training as well (which is why the language of commerce in the US was very nearly German, not English), but basically, if it weren't for the French providing a distraction for the English back in Europe, the American revolution never would have succeeded. Don't believe me? Look up the campaign from 1812-1814, when Madison decided to annex Canada. The story about why the White House is painted white came from that war....
Re: (Score:2)
There ain't no arrogance like European arrogance.
'God's own country'
'nuf said.
Learn history yourself (Score:2)
It can be argued that 1776 and 1793 aren't that far remote from each otehr , especially in a time where news traveled by boat, horse and foot. Calling 17 years a very long time is quite interesting. Furthermore it is not arrogance to point out that what you think the US invented, was actually already existing centuries before. US folk were not spontaneously generated in north America. They came from other culture and their baggage.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:4, Insightful)
Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Funny)
Technically your "home country ideals" are actually french. US constitution borrows from ideals of French Revolution extremely heavily.
Hé, les américains! disparaissez de ma pelouse!
+5 LOL (Score:2)
Where are mod points when you really need them?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that IDEALS of French revolution were stated before the revolution actually happened?
Re: (Score:2)
I read this a lot of times, but repetition doesn't make bullshit right.
According to Wikipedia: "The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787" and we all know the French Revolution started with the assault on the Bastille on July 14th, 1789. So how can a piece of written paper borrow ideals from a revolution that started almost 2 years later?
Both the French Revolution and the US Constitution are products of the Enlightenment Era or Age of Reason as it's also called.
The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. They were passed by amendment, remember, they didn't make it into the original document.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:4, Interesting)
Eh? It's the other way round I'm afraid. The french were heavily influenced by what happened in America. Check the dates!
The US Bill of Rights was not adopted until August 21, 1789. These are all amendments, remember, for some reason they didn't make it into the original document.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The reason is that the founders basically said that "All rights not in this document go to its citizens and can be further adjusted by its state governments" but some states were worried that there wasn't a "Bill of Rights." The founders initially resisted because they felt like it would limit rights because it would make it seem like you get these rights but not others.
Which is basically what has happened. If it's not in the Bill of Rights, you really have to fight for it to be considered a "right." Not
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone thought they were so fundamental and obvious that they didn't need to be stated, and they didn't want to create the impression that those were the ONLY rights reserved for the people....
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody gets credit for ideas they neglected to write down for being too obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
They are related, and both based upon the same enlightenment ideals. I dare say that the US was initially a lot more successful at implementing them, however. The rule of terror and the various emperors weren't exactly what the enlightenment thinkers had in mind.
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:5, Informative)
It may shock you to learn this, but your home country's stated ideals are all European in origin.
Re: (Score:2)
Hogwash, next youll be telling me that our founders were European in origin, or that France has a president.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't dream of it, old bean. That really would be a step too far.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a flying fuck where it comes from? Do you think "what would we ever do without the Arabs" whenever you write down some numbers?
Of course not. However, if someone here posted that the Arabs were doing a better job of implementing our number system than we were, I would call them out on their error.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU has some really good ideals, but at times really crappy implementation. In the US the original really good ideas seem pretty much dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:4, Insightful)
I have one thing to say about who's representing who's ideals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta [wikipedia.org]
Remember that the Pilgrim Fathers left England because they wanted less religious freedom. They wanted everyone to follow their brand.
Re: (Score:2)
In between ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest, sometimes they do something right. Thanks EU :-)
Shall we also allow everyone to bring a bottle of water onto the airplane? There's a lot of money to be saved by reducing the silly safety measures.
Your statement doesn't make sense. The EU is nothing but the member states, and its bodies are just representatives from countries. So it is the member states doing the things you say: "The member states ceizing all the power from the individual member states, and the member states destroying all our economies by pumping the money into the bottomless pits of high interest".
If not all the participating countries would agree and sign a agreement for each action taken, nothing would happen!
Re: (Score:2)
Brussels gets more control, and more power, and the member states all have to walk in line. It is less and less possible to have large differences in laws and regulations between the member states. That's what I meant to say. Sorry if you didn't understand me straight away.
Participating countries are often put under enormous pressure to sign some new laws that they are against (but that the majority is in favor of). In addition, the EU has grabbed a bucketload of power with the Lisbon treaty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes they get it right (Score:4, Interesting)
The EU has done more to spread freedom and democracy than any other organisation on Earth. It projects soft power with a single carrot, the offer of membership.
The first success was rehabilitating Germany after the War. Spain, Portugal and Greece all used to be military dictatorships. Now happy, prosperous, modern democratic states. Admittedly there's been some unrest recently in Greece, but there is zero possibility of another military coup, it will stay free and democratic no matter what. That's because of the larger structure it belongs to.
Then it rehabilitated central and eastern Europe. All the countries that were offered membership are free and democratic. Every one of them. Doesn't that strike you as odd? All the non-EU candidates (Ukraine, Russia) are not. Coincidence?
Turkey is far nicer place than it used be. The army stays out of politcs. The Kurds and other minorities are being treated reasonably. All thanks to EU negotiators banging on about human rights during 30 years of talks.
What other organisation can boast such an effective record at democratisation?
Re: (Score:3)
I say: ban humans on planes!
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are 60-70% water aren't they? We really need a way to dehydrate folks before they board the planes. I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!
(Laugh if you must, this will probably soon be implemented by folks who brought us the arrest-pilot-for-mentioning-that-searching-pilots-for-weapons-is-stupid-since-they-can-crash-planes-anyways and kick-kid-off-plane-for-reading-book-with-bomb-image-on-cover!!! you n
Re: (Score:2)
I propose feeding people to a giant sugarcane crusher, as soon as they clear security!
This way might work [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And yet that's how it worked out in the US. The EU might not be the US, but they certainly are doing their level best to be us. Right now they're still fighting for the rights of the population, but how long does it last before people forget why those protections were in place and get sufficiently scared to vote for politicians promising safety?
I wish more people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wish more people.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wish more people.... (Score:5, Funny)
I wish more people would opt out
I did. I just opted out of flying to the US altogether.
Re:I wish more people.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Modded funny - but I bet there are a lot more people, like myself, who are avoiding visiting the US for all the security idiocy. Whenever I need to fly (I live in Canada), I always opt for itineraries that do not go via some American airport. I'm not even sure if a transfer flight in the US means having to go through security, but frankly I don't care, nor will I take the chance if I can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to come to the US one day, but I think that as long as the TSA exists I will have to go there by boat.
Mod parent insightful (Score:2)
That's precisely what I did. I'm probably going to be moving overseas next year and I'll be flying out of Vancouver rather than the US so that I don't have to be molested as a precondition to boarding my plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As long as this nonsense [dhs.gov] exists, they'll be facing an uphill struggle. If you're a US citizen, go there, click the Apply button at the bottom left, pretend you're from the UK, and see how long it takes you to get to the point where they want money from you ($14 IIRC). After that, you have to wait to see whether you'll evn be allowed to come to the US and be fingerprinted like a common criminal. Now do it again for the wife and kids, because I didn't see any way to fill that out for a group (but I may have m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They made opting out opressive.
When you opt out, first you are told that you will have to wait. How long? Agent does not know. 15minutes? 1 hour? Agent cannot answer you that question.
You then stand aside from the queue, behind a barrier, watching as 10, 20, 50 people give up their dignity (hande hoch! raus!) in the machine. They all look at you as if you were the one giving up dignity, or were "put in a corner" like a bad child who did something wrong.
Just before you were put aside, agent tells you that on
Ah the supreme irony.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic that the country that epouses individuality above all and has and endemic "fear" of government is the one being fucked over security, while the europeans show a little bit of rational thought on this whole issue ?
And for the note, we had had over the last 4 decades terrorism in europe, and we have coped to live with it. What did you say ? Our societies didn't collpase and we sure as hell didn't transform in some kind of paranoid security state.
That 1997 Escape from New York was prophetic to a level you yankees can't even seem to fathom anymore.
Enjoy your prison guys.
Re:Ah the supreme irony.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made (e.g. the UK still isn't in the Euro for various reasons, Germany doesn't want to be involved in more Greek bailouts etc.).
When you have internal opposition on the scale of national governments, it's a bit more even and controlled than when you have only internal opposition that consists of singular people (who, history has shown, can be corrupt, swayed or just chosen so that they are all of a certain age / mindset).
That said, I've never seen a country less free than America. The only sad fact is that they don't notice it. At least the Chinese KNOW where they are (whether they care or not is another matter) but the US just don't seem to understand what they are doing to themselves and what they are letting slip under their noses. So long as they have their guns and their god, they seem perfectly happy to let a multitude of sins pass through with their approval. Hell, they were close to getting national healthcare and they managed to balls that up too.
And the Americans I've spoken to in person just don't get this... they don't understand that, actually, the stereotype of an American that doesn't know or cares what happens beyond its borders is a little more than just a stereotype. They don't care that, even today, their government imprisons and (still probably) tortures people who haven't gone on trial by doing it on foreign soil. That's "freedom" to them, because it's applied to a different type of person - non-Americans. Try to move on a guy from sitting on Wall Street, though, and it makes the news for days on end. When they show the Olympics you only see Americans winning and *NOTHING* else.
America has many problems, like just about every other country in the world, but it's like those countries that call themselves The Democratic Republic Of, or the People's Republic Of, etc. They are anything but. Land of the Free? Yeah, Land of the Free so long as you stay within our borders, have enough money for healthcare, and never ask for anything we don't want to give you.
Re: (Score:3)
It's partly because, of course, the Europeans are a number of otherwise independent states so it's like a democracy on an international scale - chances are that SOMEONE will kick up a fuss about something that they disagree with and concessions will have to be made
Actually, the European Parliament has a much better record of standing up for citizens rights than the Member Governments, who are usually the villians in such arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
That's to be expected. That's how it's worked out in the US for the last couple hundred years. There are abuses by both the states and the federal government, but when you take a look at it by and large the states have been where the most egregious violations of human rights have occurred. And typically the people crying out for states' rights are usually complaining about being told that they can't abuse their fellow citizens or allow corporations to run amok.
The Federal government does have issues in thos
Re: (Score:2)
The USA is more and more a Land of the Free Corporations since 2000 or so :(.
Re:Ah the supreme irony.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a mental checklist of things I notice about people when I meet them.
Almost without fail, those who openly and spontaneously profess a love for their country are those who don't actually realise (or won't admit) it's failings and are part of the cause of those failings. "America is the best country in the world" is a typical example that I often hear.
But those who openly and spontaneously put their own country down actually care about it enough to do so and "love" their country more.
Personally, I detest some of the things that my country has done (not least, following America into a fake "war") - I think they are abhorrent and reckless and thoughtless - but I detest them because I'm *disappointed* that it was my country that did them.
Literally, my country should be better than that. We aren't, because we did them, but we should be. And it's because I care about what my country does to its own people, people in other countries, its reputation, etc. that I am more likely to tell people the things we did wrong rather than the things we do right (How many Brits know about the Singapore pull-out in WW2? How many Americans realise how the UK treated the Ghurka despite what they've done for us?)
The UK isn't "free" (because I don't think there can be such a thing) but we are certainly "freer" than a lot of other places and yet I still point out all the stupid restrictions we have at every opportunity because I want my country to be *better*. It seems to me that a lot of the Americans I meet think their country is already "the best" and "free" and so they don't strive to better their country and its image in other countries. Everybody should just love them because they are the best (and if you watch the movie Love Actually, you'll see a very contrived but incredibly accurate depiction of how the US treats the UK politically and what our response SHOULD be).
It's like the difference between "We did what we thought was best" and "We should never have done that". Both statements may even refer to the same incident, but one attitude is superior, the other a lesson to learn from, and either tells you a hell of a lot about the people who say them.
All for them (Score:2)
To be honest, as long as these scanners aren't misused (which these regulations are supposed to prevent), I'm all for them. If there's one thing I hate about flying, it's going through security. Queuing up, taking your shoes off, emptying your pockets, rushing through only to be searched anyway, it's fucking awful and if these scanners mean I'm more able to just walk straight through, I'm all for it.
OK, X-Rays are banned (Score:2)
But what about terahertz radio imagers, which also might be hazardous?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
common sense (Score:2)
Re:Passenger can opt out... (Score:4, Informative)
Hopefully this means they will not be allowed onto the plane.
No.
'In addition, passengers are given the right to opt out from a control with scanners and be subject to an alternative method of screening.'
Re: (Score:2)
So something even more unpleasant than being virtually strip-searched, like the US "enhanced pat-downs", can be expected shortly in the UK then?
I'm afraid I'm not optimistic about this as far as the UK goes. I'm in the "doesn't fly because it's so unpleasant these days" camp, and I'm also in the "annoyed that they are spending lots of taxpayers' money on security theatre" camp. I've heard one too many rumours about people who refused the body scanner winding up on a terrorist watch list and one too many rep
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Passenger can opt out... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do agree that we've taken it too far with airport security. Most of the regulations are utterly pointless and often ignored. As an example, think of the clear plastic bags to store your toiletries in. It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag.
Having got used to this nonsense in the UK, I once went through security at a central European airport when heading back to Heathrow. Having lost my plastic bag on my trip, I asked the security guard if they had any plastic bags I could use. He pointed to his colleague and told me to ask him. This colleague was placed AFTER the security scanners. This airport had the exact same Airport regulation rules as in the UK, and all the security posters told me to use the bags, but they were obviously less anal about it. I just smiled, thanked the guy and didn't bother.
Re: (Score:2)
"It isn't enough to just leave your toothpaste visible on top of your suitcase, it has to be visible INSIDE a clear plastic bag."
Well fuck you for even thinking clear bags are enough! Obviously you support terrorism because if you were a patriot you would not only support clear bags but clear toothpaste bottles and toothpaste. Same goes for shaving cream, shampoo, luggage, clothing and electronics. Next time I fly I will put all of my belongings into clear plastic bags and wear this: http://www.zap2it.com/n [zap2it.com]
Re:Passenger can opt out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if and where I am wrong, for this is not my field of study.