Say it ain't so

Somehow over the Boxing Day hubbub, I managed to miss the news about the failed terrorist attack on a flight to Detroit. I have, however, been unable to miss all the analysis and commentary that has followed. And frankly, I'm concerned.

Britain is lauding its denial of Abdulmutallab's student visa on a technicality. He made up a college, and somehow the government noticed. Wow, looks like they can stop idiots. However, it is British to complain, and so people are complaining that smart terrorists may get into the country.

Meanwhile, in the US there is talk about security system reform, as it appears that Abdulmutallab's father called the CIA to tell him about his son's extremist views. Abdulmutallab's internet postings have also been pointed to as a sign of instability.

"How did we miss this?" they cry. "The system failed! He got on a plane! It was sheer luck no one died!"

The countless security "measures" we must take at airports have actually been proven useless. All those x-ray machines at every gate in Amsterdam's Schipol airport? Useless. Taking off your shoes? Useless. Now will we have to take off our underwear? They're talking about full body scanners that will show EVERYTHING. "That's what we need!" crow the cowed. "Except the children!!" screech the Pedofinder Generals.

I'm actually quite concerned that the government is being criticised for not listening to a warning from a parent. Now I don't know what the conversation was like, but I do not relish the idea of a person being put on a no-fly list on the say-so of a single person, parent or not. I have horrible visions of my step-son calling the Home Office in a temper tantrum and saying I want to bomb Westminster. Thank god he's not that creative. But the point still holds. Can I get my ex barred from flying by reporting him as a terrorist? He's an alcoholic, so I imagine that any sort of hassle at the airport would result in some violent display on his part, justifying a missed flight. But I shouldn't even be entertaining such ideas. One person's comment shouldn't be enough to spark any more than an investigation.

Bring back common sense!

British government seeking unlimited web censorship

Re-post from another site:

Article on Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/16/1653218

The bill: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldbills/001/10001.13-19.html#j158

(1) The Secretary of State may at any time by order impose a technical obligation on internet service providers if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in view of—

(a) an assessment carried out or steps taken by OFCOM under

section 124G; or

(b) any other consideration.
(bold added)

What is going on here? Why has this been entered? What is meant?

Spread this around.

Nobody does excess like Americans

They can try. In Lanarkshire a man has done up his house with some 45,000 Christmas lights in a dazzling display of insanity.
David Grant's Christmas lights in Blantyre, Lanarkshire





Most houses are quite sparse at Christms, with maybe some lights in the window, or a hokey "Merry Christmas" light in a central display. This is similar to the kind of things you'll see:


             minimal Christmas lights









And even this is splashing out a bit:

Glasgow Christmas Lights

But there's none of those annoying little plastic figurines that light up, like these:




Annoying plastic figurines at Christmas






They're starting to go that way, at least in the cities and town centres, but the home owners and renters just don't have it in them to spend the thousands necessary to create such a debacle as Peacock Lane:

Peacock Lane (a typical Christmas display emulated around the US)