I thought it was time for a quick catchup on current news and a bit of
discussion about some of the items. So here we go;
The main thing that caught my eye today (aside from the suggestion of introducing a smoking licence, more on that in a min) was the fact that the government is thinking of legislating against file-sharers. Erm, call me niave but isn't that what the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988 is for? Ah but of course it doesn't require ISP's to play the nanny state role and spy on their users. As the news story linked above says, the plan sounds like it was written by someone who does not understand technology at all. ISP's just don't get packets going through their system that say "Uploading Britney Spears new song" they literally get bits of files, tiny bits one after another, and that file could be porn, mp3's, html documents or even PGP encryption keys. The storage needed to collect these packets and process them, then archive them for the police would be huge when spread across an ISP's customer base. Best not forget either that each packet received is not necessarily the next part of the file, it could be part of another. Once again we see a dangerous lack of technical knowledge from those willing to try and legislate to benefit their own pockets. I imagine this is an act that wil never get passed, but then I said the same about the recent amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
There is some dangerous stuff going on in this country and it will affect us all.
MS has bought a share in Facebook though some will of course be going mad about how this will 'hot up' competition between Google and MS, they should remember that it is a pretty small share, 1.6% is not an awful lot, although of course the $240m that they paid for it is no small fry. It will be interesting to see what happens now, the past has told us that when you get into bed with MS the only way you leave is in a bodybag.
Head of a gambling company is arrested under French law, but is protected by EU law I found this story quite interesting as it rather highlights how some EU laws are quite incompatible with pre-existing ones. The French law in question dates from the 19th century, but is over-ruled by EU law on gambling permits. It seems to happen with quite a number of other laws as well.
An American woman has had her car blown up by a Kamikaze squirrel. It seems highly improbable, but it appears to have happened. Gotta watch out for those suckers!
Finally (for today), lets deal with the suggestion that you should require a license to smoke. Firstly, you can fuck right off and secondly, a more adult approach, there are a number of issues with that plan. Aside from the idea of chargin smokers 200 pounds a year for thie right to smoke (oh the government would love the income though), we smokers already pay a great deal more tax than most of our non-smoking counterparts. If the government wanted to implement a smoking license system they would need to a) reduce the tax on fags dramatically and b) consider rescinding the smoking ban. If smokers are to pay 200 quid a year, they will be expecting the right to smoke more or less wherever they want. But of course the government would probably levy these charges on top, so what would happen? people would smoke illegally, ah but you can't buy them without a license.... up springs a thriving blackmarket selling both cheap cigarettes and counterfeit smoking licenses. Genius! Organised crime is funded for another decade until the government realises the mess it has made just because some people don't like smoking.
Regardless of the health risks/benefits it is my choice to smoke, and whilst I appreciate that some people do not like being around it (as a rule I don't smoke in front of people who have expressed a distaste for it), no trumped up politician is going to convince me to stop for any other reason than my wanting to. And quite frankly, the more interfering busybodies preach to me that I should stop, the more I want to carry on smoking. Quite frankly, I am not convinced by the alleged health risks of smoking. I agree it cannot be good for you, but have yet to see actual scientific proof directly and categorically linking smoking to any of the 'smoking related diseases.' You cannot point to someone who has cancer and say "He wouldn't have got it had he not smoked" in much the same way you cannot point to a non-smoker and say "He definitely won't get cancer, because he doesn't smoke." Let me and the other smokers enjoy our habit in peace, we have already been kicked out of the pubs and workplaces, you got what you wanted and more. The one thing many non-smokers seem to find hard to understand is the pleasurable and recreational element to smoking, it is an enjoyable habit. Driving down the street puts your life in serious danger, yet we do not see people reacting to it in quite the same way.
I will quit smoking when I wish to quit smoking, even if it means smoking illegally, I will continue to do so until I decide it is time to quit. I will not be allowing any interfering know-nothings to step into my life and take away my free will, and as for the medical profession? Don't get me started on them, suffice to say they should be focusing on medical matters and not concerning themselves with Politics.
The main thing that caught my eye today (aside from the suggestion of introducing a smoking licence, more on that in a min) was the fact that the government is thinking of legislating against file-sharers. Erm, call me niave but isn't that what the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988 is for? Ah but of course it doesn't require ISP's to play the nanny state role and spy on their users. As the news story linked above says, the plan sounds like it was written by someone who does not understand technology at all. ISP's just don't get packets going through their system that say "Uploading Britney Spears new song" they literally get bits of files, tiny bits one after another, and that file could be porn, mp3's, html documents or even PGP encryption keys. The storage needed to collect these packets and process them, then archive them for the police would be huge when spread across an ISP's customer base. Best not forget either that each packet received is not necessarily the next part of the file, it could be part of another. Once again we see a dangerous lack of technical knowledge from those willing to try and legislate to benefit their own pockets. I imagine this is an act that wil never get passed, but then I said the same about the recent amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
There is some dangerous stuff going on in this country and it will affect us all.
MS has bought a share in Facebook though some will of course be going mad about how this will 'hot up' competition between Google and MS, they should remember that it is a pretty small share, 1.6% is not an awful lot, although of course the $240m that they paid for it is no small fry. It will be interesting to see what happens now, the past has told us that when you get into bed with MS the only way you leave is in a bodybag.
Head of a gambling company is arrested under French law, but is protected by EU law I found this story quite interesting as it rather highlights how some EU laws are quite incompatible with pre-existing ones. The French law in question dates from the 19th century, but is over-ruled by EU law on gambling permits. It seems to happen with quite a number of other laws as well.
An American woman has had her car blown up by a Kamikaze squirrel. It seems highly improbable, but it appears to have happened. Gotta watch out for those suckers!
Finally (for today), lets deal with the suggestion that you should require a license to smoke. Firstly, you can fuck right off and secondly, a more adult approach, there are a number of issues with that plan. Aside from the idea of chargin smokers 200 pounds a year for thie right to smoke (oh the government would love the income though), we smokers already pay a great deal more tax than most of our non-smoking counterparts. If the government wanted to implement a smoking license system they would need to a) reduce the tax on fags dramatically and b) consider rescinding the smoking ban. If smokers are to pay 200 quid a year, they will be expecting the right to smoke more or less wherever they want. But of course the government would probably levy these charges on top, so what would happen? people would smoke illegally, ah but you can't buy them without a license.... up springs a thriving blackmarket selling both cheap cigarettes and counterfeit smoking licenses. Genius! Organised crime is funded for another decade until the government realises the mess it has made just because some people don't like smoking.
Regardless of the health risks/benefits it is my choice to smoke, and whilst I appreciate that some people do not like being around it (as a rule I don't smoke in front of people who have expressed a distaste for it), no trumped up politician is going to convince me to stop for any other reason than my wanting to. And quite frankly, the more interfering busybodies preach to me that I should stop, the more I want to carry on smoking. Quite frankly, I am not convinced by the alleged health risks of smoking. I agree it cannot be good for you, but have yet to see actual scientific proof directly and categorically linking smoking to any of the 'smoking related diseases.' You cannot point to someone who has cancer and say "He wouldn't have got it had he not smoked" in much the same way you cannot point to a non-smoker and say "He definitely won't get cancer, because he doesn't smoke." Let me and the other smokers enjoy our habit in peace, we have already been kicked out of the pubs and workplaces, you got what you wanted and more. The one thing many non-smokers seem to find hard to understand is the pleasurable and recreational element to smoking, it is an enjoyable habit. Driving down the street puts your life in serious danger, yet we do not see people reacting to it in quite the same way.
I will quit smoking when I wish to quit smoking, even if it means smoking illegally, I will continue to do so until I decide it is time to quit. I will not be allowing any interfering know-nothings to step into my life and take away my free will, and as for the medical profession? Don't get me started on them, suffice to say they should be focusing on medical matters and not concerning themselves with Politics.
