Virginia Tech

Posted by: ithoughti

Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 12:13

I wanted to see if there are any other Hokies here?

I graduated from this incredibly wonderful school in 1999. Yesterday was very hard to watch. I wanted VT to always be the idyllic oasis that it was for me. I just want the same for all the students that go there. I feel so bad for all involved and my heart goes out to all of them. I love that school with my whole being and I am sick over this tragedy.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 12:53

I didn't go to VT but I had my application half filled out when I got accepted to Penn State. I was at PSU when this fatal shooting occurred, and though it's nowhere near the scale of the VT massacre, it was still a horrible tragedy. A large, insular college town often feels like utopia to those who live there, and a horrific event like this certainly brings one back to reality.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 13:22

I had a scholarship to VT, and I was intending to go there until they, for some reason, revoked my scholarship. Still, I went and visited and really liked the campus. Very sad.

However, I am a little irritated at the news coverage.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 13:35

It's a shame that the possession of handguns on campus is disallowed, otherwise the scale of the tragedy could have been averted. Hopefully this will motivate congress to get rid of the silly "gun-free zones".
Posted by: webroach

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 13:50

Quote:
It's a shame that the possession of handguns on campus is disallowed, otherwise the scale of the tragedy could have been averted. Hopefully this will motivate congress to get rid of the silly "gun-free zones".


While I generally agree with you on gun ownership, Billy, I have to say that I find the idea of 1000's of Ugg-and-giant-sunglasses-wearing C-average coeds packing heat may just be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

That said, my heart goes out to all the families of the victims, as well as the family of the shooter.
Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 14:44

How many people would have been killed over the past couple of years if students at large carried guns like they carry iPods? Perhaps more than in this single tragedy.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 14:55

Quote:
It's a shame that the possession of handguns on campus is disallowed, otherwise the scale of the tragedy could have been averted. Hopefully this will motivate congress to get rid of the silly "gun-free zones".


That's funny, my university was a 'gun-free zone' and in the three years I was there nobody was shot. Come to think of it, none of the universities my friends went to had any fatal shootings either.

The sooner someone takes the shotgun out of Charlton Heston's cold dead hands the better.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 15:26

Quote:
It's a shame that the possession of handguns on campus is disallowed, otherwise the scale of the tragedy could have been averted. Hopefully this will motivate congress to get rid of the silly "gun-free zones".

Of course, the scale of this tragedy could have been averted if handguns weren't so easily obtainable in the first place. Can you imagine how difficult it would have been to shoot 33 people, when the only weapon at hand is a knife? Hopefully this will motivate congress to get rid of that silly outdated "2nd amendment", and put some real restrictions on handgun ownership.

There... I'll see your stupid "could have been averted" hyperbole, and raise you a stupid "could have been averted" hyperbole of my own.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 15:28

Please don't feed the trolls.
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 15:30

Quote:
How many people would have been killed over the past couple of years if students at large carried guns like they carry iPods? Perhaps more than in this single tragedy.

Yes, but as long as it's only one or two people at a time, that's okay... the population at large won't care, or even notice. Kind of like car accidents, you know?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 15:57

Despite my admonition to not feed the trolls, I do feel compelled to point out that the "gun-free zones" (as defined in 18USC922 and 18USC921) cover primary and secondary schools (that is, K-12) only, and therefore have no effect on colleges (unless, obviously, there's a primary or secondary school close by).
Posted by: Dignan

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 16:01

Very sad indeed. I applied to VT but got in elsewhere early. I've been to the campus, and I can't imagine how difficult it would be to react to something like this when the area is that enormous.

The shooter was from Centreville, VA, which is where my best friend and his wife live. I know it's silly to think about their proximity that way...
Posted by: bbowman

Re: Virginia Tech - 17/04/2007 17:46

I am also a Hokie Graduate (EE) of the same year as you. 1999. it seems like it has been forever since I was there and it really brought back a flood of memories to see the pictures of the campus. I feel dreadful about this whole act.

As far as gun control is concerned, I think it was just too easy for this guy to get a gun. What is the difference CONCEPTUALLY between this kind of gun freedom and the freedom for a country to develop Nuclear Arms. By the logic stated above, it would seem that if only everyone had Nuclear missiles, war would stop, right? I think that that puts it into perspective a little more. Each gun is like a nuclear bomb to a single person - it might as well be.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 00:21

Quote:
However, I am a little irritated at the news coverage.

I haven't had the heart to watch/read/listen too much. Irritated in what way?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 00:41

Not speaking for Bitt, but, off the top of my head, here's the problem with the coverage, what little I've been able to stomach of it:

1. Anchors, reporters, etc. reporting rumors as facts. You're covering a horrifying, tragic situation. The people involved are shell-shocked. Some of them are telling you the truth, some of them are telling you half-truths, some of them are telling you what their buddy said they saw. Wait until you have confirmation from authoritative sources before you throw something out there that can muddy the waters, confuse those who really need to know, etc.

2. Reporters at press conferences ask the same question six different ways, even though the principals have said they are not going to answer those questions. While I'd love to see that kind of stick-to-it-ive-ness in the White House press corps, it's rather unnecessary from the media circus that's on the VT massacre story. There's a good reason the cops/University officials aren't telling you things, and asking the same question in slightly different styles to try to squeeze a story out of them is not helping the situation

3. Last but certainly not least, pretending this is the only story in the world. It is certainly the most "compelling" story to emerge in the last couple days. It's certainly one that has many elements that make good "news stories." But 33 dead in Iraq probably happens before daybreak. I recognize that after 4+ years of war coverage the American public isn't as "interested" in the stories coming out of Iraq, and I know that the soldiers who are dying there know the risks, whereas the kids at VPI were innocents who had no reason to believe they were in danger. But can we please have some perspective? In an hour newscast, give me 10 minutes on the shooting and 40 minutes of other news that's important, but maybe not as interesting.

So, basically, the same gripes that everyone in America has had about broadcast news ever since it stopped being a loss leader and started being a cash cow.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 01:40

Quote:
....But 33 dead in Iraq probably happens before daybreak. ....

I won't say my question was a set up, but I figured I'd let somebody else say this before me. Yup, "60 dead in suicide car bomb north of Baghdad" has become just another parenthetical ho-hum, I think, along the lines of a bad weather report.

But I do find this massacre really horrible. Perhaps mostly because I think we can expect more. Other countries, Australia and UK come to mind, responded to gun slaughters with measures that were effective (so far, anyway). Sadly, I don't think the US has what it takes to tackle this problem and make this kind of senseless event less likely.

With respect to the other famiar excesses and deficiencies of our media, I don't need much convincing. But I was interested in Bitt's comment (still am). Yeah, would that the press were so pushy and gutsy when it might actually accomplish something (like keep us from wasting tens of thousands of lives elsewhere). But, nope, gotta wait until there is blood in the water and weakened prey.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 01:50

#3

It doesn't help that my wife's a sucker for this stuff. If it's sensational, she's all over it. Which is not to say that she's oblivious to the rest of the news. It's just that if this sort of thing happens, the TV is on the news channel all day. Which just makes it that much more painfully obvious that they're not reporting anything else at all.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 03:15

I especially like the fact that everyone in the media is looking for a scapegoat since about 10 minutes after it happened. How 'bout just blaming the gunman, hmm?
Posted by: webroach

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 04:32

Quote:
I especially like the fact that everyone in the media is looking for a scapegoat since about 10 minutes after it happened. How 'bout just blaming the gunman, hmm?


Impossible. As you can see, in America we don't blame the individual for their actions. It's the media and the ability to purchase guns legally that's to blame.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 11:46

Or the inability to carry fully-automatic pistols everywhere.
Posted by: Redrum

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 13:27

Quote:
Or the inability to carry fully-automatic pistols everywhere.


I know most here disagree with Billy's gun toting comment but I think we all can agree it would have been nice if someone (police officer, student, pimp, nun …etc) would have capped the shooter's ass before he slaughtered the lambs.
Posted by: Redrum

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 13:33

Quote:
I especially like the fact that everyone in the media is looking for a scapegoat since about 10 minutes after it happened. How 'bout just blaming the gunman, hmm?


YES!

There is no personal responsibility anymore. And I’m sure if he had lived and this had gone to trial his lawyers would have blamed his parents, rap or rock music, the school system.. . everyone but the shooter.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 14:13

Quote:
I think we all can agree it would have been nice if someone (police officer, student, pimp, nun …etc) would have capped the shooter's ass before he slaughtered the lambs.

Yeah. But what's with the macho posturing language?
Posted by: Redrum

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 14:20

Quote:
Quote:
I think we all can agree it would have been nice if someone (police officer, student, pimp, nun …etc) would have capped the shooter's ass before he slaughtered the lambs.

Yeah. But what's with the macho posturing language?


I thought it sounded good, positive and energetic.

Better than of negative, argumentative and degrading comments.
Posted by: Robotic

Re: Virginia Tech - 18/04/2007 20:15

Good, comprehensive read at wikipedia-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

Truly a tragedy.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Virginia Tech - 19/04/2007 00:26

Quote:
I especially like the fact that everyone in the media is looking for a scapegoat since about 10 minutes after it happened. How 'bout just blaming the gunman, hmm?

In a semi-related story...

In 1957 a subsidiary of Pillage Products procured a permit to construct a metalworks factory in the town of Corndog, Oklahoma to manufacture premium knives -- carving knives, throwing knives, et cetera. As construction was completed and knife production ramped up, citizens of Corndog observed that the "factory" was no much more than a huge tin shed. They stormed to the mayor's office asking "Doesn't Pillage know this is tornado country??? That factory is a safety hazard!" To which the Mayor responded "I brought this up with Pillage, but they said that if the town messed with their building permit, they'd hit us with a constitutional lawsuit -- something about the 2nd, 8th or 10th Amendment, 'personal freedom' and 'a taking'. The town can ill afford that. Besides, I'm planning on installing a new tornado siren soon and Pastor Rodney Flash of the First Absolute Church of Corndog has promised that he is going to beef up the church basement to serve as a tornado shelter." The citizens departed, grumbling.

As fate would have it, the Mayor and the Pastor departed the next day for a business development seminar in Oklahoma City.

As luck would have it, no sooner had they settled in at the Motel 6 in OK City when a huge tornado touched down in Corndog. the tornado swept across the Pillage factory, ripped the flimsy roof off and sucked up every knife from the factory floor and loading dock. The tornado then spit out all of the knives in a fair imitation of an AC-130 gunship. Save for the absent Mayor and Pastor, all 2432 residents of Corndog were killed.

Hearing this news early the next morning, the Mayor and Pastor abandoned the seminar and drove furiously back to Corndog at speeds, say some, in excess of 91MPH. But the OK City satellite news trucks were already in place at Town Hall when they arrived. As they de-SUVed, the Mayor and Pastor were assaulted with a strident, screeching cacaphony of questions from the pack of rabid media wolves:

What about the flimsy factory???

What about the tornado siren???

What about the tornado shelter???

To which they Mayor adroitly responded: "I think we need to examine the tornado's responsibility here!!"

And which the Pastor quickly seconded: "You can rest assured that tornado is burning in Hell."
Posted by: Redrum

Re: Virginia Tech - 20/04/2007 16:01

Quote:
I especially like the fact that everyone in the media is looking for a scapegoat since about 10 minutes after it happened. How 'bout just blaming the gunman, hmm?


I think everyone here will agree...

This guy is a NUT!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18220228/
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 01:32

As Jim so ellegantly put it: if you ban guns, people will still get them. The best way to fight gun violience is not to be Big Brother like the UK (sorry guys), but to attack the manufacturers and distributors. Give them a taste of their own medicine, eh?
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 01:37

From Redrum's link:
Quote:
"It disgusts me," said Isaiah Triforce Johnson, a longtime gamer and founder of a New York-based gaming advocacy group...

Clearly, Johnson's PARENTS were also longtime gamers; poor kid.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 09:39

Quote:
As Jim so ellegantly put it: if you ban guns, people will still get them. The best way to fight gun violience is not to be Big Brother like the UK (sorry guys), but to attack the manufacturers and distributors. Give them a taste of their own medicine, eh?


Where's your proof that banning handguns in the UK hasn't worked? If guns aren't available 'over the counter' then other than going to the nastiest neighbourhood in town and asking the nearest betracksuited youth where you can buy a gun without having the sh*t kicked out of you, how are you going get your hands on one? Ebay?

I think if Cho had lived in this country it wouldn't have happened.
Posted by: petteri

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 10:30

Quote:
I think if Cho had lived in this country it wouldn't have happened.


It shouldn't have happened here either:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/21/news/web-gun21.php

That said I still am in support of much stricter gun control laws here in the USA.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 10:33

Quote:
I think if Cho had lived in this country it wouldn't have happened.


I disagree. If he wanted one bad enough, he'd have found one. If I wanted a gun, I could easily get hold of one.

Banning handguns here is great - it stops the spur of the moment killings, but for those who are slowly festering with hate/rage/insanity, they'll still get hold of one if that's their intention.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 12:51

Quote:
The best way to fight gun violience is not to be Big Brother like the UK (sorry guys)

Bwah ha ha ha ha

ROFL!!!

I've still got the ink on my fingers from when I got fingerprinted for going to the US for a skiing trip - hey, no-one ever told me ... did the USSR fingerprint foreign visitors routinely?

Oh and what about the wiretaps for foreign communication?

The NSA? What with their [censored in transit] project and what about [censored in transit]? Answer me that.

Ah, "Homeland Security" - nothing Orwellian about that one eh?

The "PATRIOT" act - gosh, what a coincidence that those initials turned out like that - who woulda guessed! I'll bet an act like that is full of American values like apple pie, civil liberties and the like! Anyone not liking that must be real un-american.

TSA? Ok, that's a joke - or is it they're a joke - never sure.

No-fly lists? Don't you need to be a senator or a dead-terrorist to get on one of them?

And what about those "democratic" elections you have over there?

Puleeez Mr Kettle


There is no rational argument that supports public ownership of guns and prevents making chemical weapons or explosives in your kitchen.

Having said that, this was a statistical blip that was horrid for the families - almost, but not quite, as bad as having a child run down by a drunk driver. Maybe one who's had a DUI charge in the past. Or maybe one that just gets off totally free to drive around some more? How many of them do you have a year in the entire US, 10? 20? maybe as many as 40?

Or is it in the hundreds or thousands? More?

Actually - forget "almost as bad". It's nowhere near as bad.

Its simply that we like our media to put on a circus where they can entertain us with bloodbaths worthy of the Romans.

Oh, if anyone's interested this weeks New Scientist has an article talking about TV, gaming and the like and the relationship to violence. The scientific analysis behind these is complex and subject to media rebuttal (global warming, cigarettes=cancer anyone?) but there's a new tack...

They are analysing the *strength* of the analysis - meta-analysis. It shows that the evidence for TV/gaming to violence is not quite as strong as the evidence that cigarettes cause cancer but it is stronger than:
* Passive smoking causing lung cancer (2x stronger)
* Condoms reducing HIV (2x stronger)
* Calcium making bones stronger (3x stronger)
* Time spent on homework vs academic success (3x stronger)

So if you believe the science behind any of them then ask yourself why you don't (want to?) believe the science behind violence in society and the media.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 13:06

Quote:
Quote:
I think if Cho had lived in this country it wouldn't have happened.


I disagree. If he wanted one bad enough, he'd have found one. If I wanted a gun, I could easily get hold of one.


Okay you've got my interest, how exactly would you go about that?
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 13:27

Quote:
Okay you've got my interest, how exactly would you go about that?

Mail order from the US?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 15:23

Quote:
I've still got the ink on my fingers from when I got fingerprinted for going to the US for a skiing trip - hey, no-one ever told me ... did the USSR fingerprint foreign visitors routinely?


Last time I entered the US, I got red-flagged by customs. They searched all my baggage, but they also took out my laptop, turned it on, and searched through my files for about 10 minutes. They said they were looking for "anything illegal", "such as child porn".

Oh, and I'm a US citizen.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 15:40

Banning guns will only take the guns out of the hands of honest people. We already have laws against bloody massacres -- but laws don't stop criminals. And there even is quite a bit of evidence that tighter gun laws cause an increase in violent crime rates, since a disarmed public makes a criminal's cost of doing business much lower, much like it did in that VT classroom that day.

But let's say it were possible to not only outlaw guns, but to eradicate them as well so that even the criminals don't have them. In this scenario, only the ruling elite will have access to these superior fighting tools. This is almost the case in England today. The result is a higher violent crime rate (physically weaker people can no longer defend themselves from young, strong criminals), but the more alarming and dangerous result is the effect it has had on the populace as a whole.

They are now merely sheep, or more accurately, neutered oxen, working their blue/white collar day-to-day jobs in the Big Brother Capital of the world, forfeiting 70% or more of the fruits of their labor to the Bank of England, the Queen, and the international coterie of insider financiers through their utopic Socialist system of control. The same is happening here in the US, but at least we have not yet been fully declawed and the hope of revolution is still alive and well.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 17:30

I'll just point out that a comparison between the US and the UK in regards to gun control is invalid. There are far too many differences between the countries, politically, geographically, and socially, for there to be a reasonable mapping between the two. A much more realistic comparison might be between the US and Australia.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 17:40

Quote:
In this scenario, only the ruling elite will have access to these superior fighting tools.

You mean like bazookas, tanks, fighter jets, battleships, and thermonuclear weapons? Unless you're willing to argue that private citizens should have access to all of these and that private citizens can have access to these (I'm pretty sure that I can't afford a battleship, for example), then your argument simply has no teeth.
Posted by: peter

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 17:51

Quote:
working their blue/white collar day-to-day jobs in the Big Brother Capital of the world, forfeiting 70% or more of the fruits of their labor to the Bank of England, the Queen, and the international coterie of insider financiers through their utopic Socialist system of control.

In fact, most taxation goes towards education, the national health service, and benefits for the disadvantaged. All those are things I'm happy to see my money spent on -- I can't make it add up to 70%, only 60%, but perhaps you're using out-of-date income tax numbers? I fail to see your apparent argument that with a gun in my hand I'd be less happy to see my money being used for those purposes.

Don't forget that Britain elected its socialist government, despite the existence of a less socialist alternative. Gun control is also massively electorally popular.

Peter
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 18:04

Quote:
I'll just point out that a comparison between the US and the UK in regards to gun control is invalid. There are far too many differences between the countries, politically, geographically, and socially, for there to be a reasonable mapping between the two. A much more realistic comparison might be between the US and Australia.


Okay..... I'm just pleased to be in a country where anyone found carrying a handgun or keeping one at home has it taken off them. I have no need for a gun and I don't see what anyone else needs one for.
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 18:21

Quote:
Quote:
Okay you've got my interest, how exactly would you go about that?

Mail order from the US?


For air mail this is unlikely (everything is x-rayed), but for some surface mail or containerised freight it would be stupidly easy. It would still be risky, I believe many illegal weapons come from Eastern Europe or are euro-spec blank firers or self-contained air cartridge guns converted (the former being illegal to possess, the latter needing a Firearms Certificate).
Posted by: peter

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 18:34

Quote:
For air mail this is unlikely (everything is x-rayed), but for some surface mail or containerised freight it would be stupidly easy.

Rio made the interesting decision to use "TNT" as the internal code-name for the product which became the Rio Carbon. That project occupied our attention so much at the time that, to us, it became the primary meaning of the word TNT. This resulted, on at least one occasion, in Rio Santa Clara sending over here to Cambridge a box clearly labelled on its customs declaration "TNT Samples" and containing (what to an X-ray machine would be) small, unidentifiable circuit boards. Customs hadn't even opened it.

Peter
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Virginia Tech - 21/04/2007 19:25

Quote:
Quote:
For air mail this is unlikely (everything is x-rayed), but for some surface mail or containerised freight it would be stupidly easy.

Rio made the interesting decision to use "TNT" as the internal code-name for the product which became the Rio Carbon. That project occupied our attention so much at the time that, to us, it became the primary meaning of the word TNT. This resulted, on at least one occasion, in Rio Santa Clara sending over here to Cambridge a box clearly labelled on its customs declaration "TNT Samples" and containing (what to an X-ray machine would be) small, unidentifiable circuit boards. Customs hadn't even opened it.



I had a slight problem a few years ago, I won't go into detail but suffice to say I bought an item from France and it ended up with CID questioning me. It might be that the type package was known by the postal workers though. Another person I know bought an Uzi part from the US (a frame I think, whatever it was it was legal to own), but the seller left in a certain part which wasn't legal to own, a receiver or bolt or something. He ended up in a Crown Court trial and got several years in prison. Luckily he appealed and got the sentence cut to time served, nine months I think.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 02:50

Quote:
Don't forget that Britain elected its socialist government, despite the existence of a less socialist alternative. Gun control is also massively electorally popular.


Of course. And the russian citizens supported communism. And the middle eastern average joe thinks it right to treat women like shit. And the ancient aztecs were all for the sacrificing of virgins on occasion. Just because you're willingly drinking the koolaid, it doesn't mean that it isn't a means of control. In fact, that's the only way to do it. Members of cults are always willing participants, yet they are carefully and systematically coerced into that state of mind.

Quote:
In fact, most taxation goes towards education, the national health service, and benefits for the disadvantaged. All those are things I'm happy to see my money spent on -- I can't make it add up to 70%, only 60%, but perhaps you're using out-of-date income tax numbers?


Don't forget sales tax and excise taxes. The average London household income is like 35,000 pounds, I believe. It takes a lot less than 60% of that to pay for a year of health insurance for yourself and for a fraction of your childhood education.

But of course you have to pay for roads and such. Why then, do you have taxes on cars and fuel?

A large portion of that money is going towards interest payments on your 400 billion pounds of debt to the Bank of England, a privately owned corporation whoms members control your government to an alarming degree. The Bank loans pounds to the government -- loans secured by public taxation.

You're even further taxed through inflation, caused by fractional reserve lending. While the elite bankers get richer - via electronic creation of currency - your pounds lose purchasing power.
Posted by: andy

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 07:01

Quote:

Quote:
In fact, most taxation goes towards education, the national health service, and benefits for the disadvantaged. All those are things I'm happy to see my money spent on -- I can't make it add up to 70%, only 60%, but perhaps you're using out-of-date income tax numbers?


Don't forget sales tax and excise taxes.


He was including sales tax and excise. The highest UK income tax rate, for earnings over £34,600, is 40%. Below that it is 22%.

Sales tax is 17.5%, but doesn't apply to things like food.

That said the effective tax on fuel is too scary to calculate, given that the excise far out ways the cost of the fuel itself.

The top income tax rate was at one time 60%, back in the 1970s I think. If they did that again now there would be a mass exodus of the rich to other countries.

Edit:

Ok, I decided I would calculate the true cost of fuel tax, using this website:

http://www.abd.org.uk/fuel_tax_calculator.htm

The end result is that with the 20,000 miles a year that I drive, the tax on the fuel I used amounts to an extra 3.83% on income tax. Ouch !
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 09:53

I assume your house is lined with tinfoil to stop the government controlled signals getting in, right?
Posted by: tahir

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 10:09

Quote:
I assume your house is lined with tinfoil to stop the government controlled signals getting in, right?


I've got one of these too:

http://www.stopabductions.com/

I believe they should be govt subsidised, thats what we pays our taxes for innit?
Posted by: pedrohoon

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 10:17

Quote:


Oh and what about the wiretaps for foreign communication?

The NSA? What with their [censored in transit] project and what about [censored in transit]? Answer me that.



Anyone else getting the words above censored?
Posted by: tahir

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 10:33

Quote:
Anyone else getting the words above censored?


Yeah
Posted by: Phoenix42

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 10:37

I think it is humor guys.
Posted by: tahir

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 11:17

Quote:
I think it is humor guys.


All of it, or just that bit?
Posted by: pedrohoon

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 11:22

Ah, OK, I thought it may have something to do with CALEA or ECHELON
Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 13:03

Quote:
I have no need for a gun and I don't see what anyone else needs one for.

Even with all the burglaries, car thievery, and drunken rowdiness that I often hear about?

I don't know much about England, but it seems like a rough neighborhood to me. Why else would they need security cameras outside and inside every building and traffic cameras monitoring the movement of cars. What am I missing?
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 13:13

Quote:
Even with all the burglaries, car thievery, and drunken rowdiness that I often hear about?


Whoa! There's the difference between the US and UK. Your making a huge generalisation about it being a rough neighbourhood! Yes we, like every other country in the world, have some car thieves, drunken people and burglary, but I personally don't feel the need to grab myself a gun and shoot them dead. I have never felt threatened enough to need to attack somebody, let alone shoot them.

Quote:
Why else would they need security cameras outside and inside every building and traffic cameras monitoring the movement of cars.


You've been watching too much sensation news!
Posted by: andy

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 13:32

Quote:
Quote:
I have no need for a gun and I don't see what anyone else needs one for.

Even with all the burglaries, car thievery, and drunken rowdiness that I often hear about?



I can't really see drunken rowdiness and widespread gun ownership being a great combination.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 18:03

Quote:
Ah, OK, I thought it may have something to do with CALEA or ECHELON


Surely not.
They would be very 'Big Brother'-ish and that's what the UK was being accused of.... oh wait <sniff> is that irony <sniff>, not sure...

[Yes, The first half was intended as rather acerbic humour - please remember I am British. The second half was serious. BTW Mr Kettle was an allusion too just in case that's colloquial English.]
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 18:03

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have no need for a gun and I don't see what anyone else needs one for.

Even with all the burglaries, car thievery, and drunken rowdiness that I often hear about?



I can't really see drunken rowdiness and widespread gun ownership being a great combination.


Surely the definition of 'Redneck'?
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 18:58

Quote:
Quote:
I have no need for a gun and I don't see what anyone else needs one for.

Even with all the burglaries, car thievery, and drunken rowdiness that I often hear about?


I'd rather be punched in the face by someone standing in front of me than shot in the head from 20 meters away.

Quote:
I don't know much about England, but it seems like a rough neighborhood to me.


You've obviously not seen much of it then. Major cities possibly.

Quote:
Why else would they need security cameras outside and inside every building


Don't know about every building but we have CCTV cameras at work to stop the cleaners from making off with our equipment, it's worked in at least one instance.

Quote:
and traffic cameras monitoring the movement of cars.


Being able to check traffic density before you head out is really useful. Every first world country should have it.

Quote:
What am I missing?


Dunno.
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 19:11

Quote:
Being able to check traffic density before you head out is really useful. Every first world country should have it.

Ouch.

Ouch!

Ouch!!!!!
Posted by: drakino

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 19:54

Quote:
Being able to check traffic density before you head out is really useful. Every first world country should have it.


Cameras do a pretty poor job of monitoring overall traffic. They can help focus in on what might be causing it (unreported accident, mass of animals in the highway, whatever), but the traffic systems I have seen here in the US all use road sensors to monitor the speed and number of vehicles passing over them. In LA, they are pretty visible circular cutouts in the pavement where the sensors were placed, always two right in a row, and here in Austin similar square markings reveal where they have been added. It also makes it much easier to get traffic info at a glance, as I can look at a colored highway map of the entire city in a few seconds. The cameras on the major highway in Colorado Springs were pretty worthless, since you had to look at tons of images, and still not have a good picture of your entire commute.

From what I understand, the use of CCTV was started by the Brittish government in the 70s, due to the IRA attacks of the time. And while the system didn't stop the 7/7/05 bombings, it did help to find those that attempted the 21/7/05 bombings. I do have to question why so much surveillance is needed though. One of the many differences between US and UK culture I suppose.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 20:17

Quote:
Quote:
Being able to check traffic density before you head out is really useful. Every first world country should have it.


From what I understand, the use of CCTV was started by the Brittish government in the 70s, due to the IRA attacks of the time....
I do have to question why so much surveillance is needed though. One of the many differences between US and UK culture I suppose.


Well if certain "anti-terrorist" countries hadn't funded the IRA... [funny, that's gone quiet since 11/9]

So basically it's *your* fault - gee, thanks guys.

Still, the UK over-reacts by putting up traffic cameras, the US locks people in prison without trials for 'having a funny beard' and generally abandons any pretence at 'liberty'.



And I'm not sure I'd class it as surveillance (yet).

My wife had a crash at a roundabout last year and we tried to get the traffic camera tapes (yes, tapes - we think).
They (the local council) seemed to be helpful but they only kept them for 7 days. Not exactly Echelon.


Anyhow, lets just give up the whole UK vs US thing.

I mean, let's face it........ President Bush.

You're even agreeing with me now aren't you?
Don't worry, you can admit it - your amongst friends...

There, there; you just think about that and have a good cry.
You'll feel much better if you just let it all out...
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 20:18

Quote:
Quote:
Being able to check traffic density before you head out is really useful. Every first world country should have it.


Cameras do a pretty poor job of monitoring overall traffic. They can help focus in on what might be causing it (unreported accident, mass of animals in the highway, whatever)


Quote:
The cameras on the major highway in Colorado Springs were pretty worthless, since you had to look at tons of images, and still not have a good picture of your entire commute.


To me it doesn't matter what it causing it, if it's gridlocked then I know to avoid it and use another route. I rarely need to see the whole route, just the hotspots.

Quote:
From what I understand, the use of CCTV was started by the Brittish government in the 70s, due to the IRA attacks of the time. And while the system didn't stop the 7/7/05 bombings, it did help to find those that attempted the 21/7/05 bombings. I do have to question why so much surveillance is needed though. One of the many differences between US and UK culture I suppose.


Of the cities I know, CCTV of that complexity has only really been round in the last 10 or so years. I feel safer walking through the city center late at night as a result.

Why anyone would have a problem with it is beyond me.... unless they've got something to hide. I highly doubt Big Brother gives a toss that I went to WH Smiths this afternoon.
Posted by: CrackersMcCheese

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 20:31

Unless you buy

Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 20:36

Guilty as charged...

Oh, and this:

Posted by: drakino

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 22:15

Well, this has gone all off track at this point (gogo off topic tangents in Off-Topic), but my post wasn't a US vs UK thing. Just an actual honest questioning of the CCTV practices there that I thought could be answered here. Guess I'll look elsewhere. As far as the US downward spiral over the past few years, thats a topic for me for another time.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 22:38

Quote:
Just an actual honest questioning of the CCTV practices there that I thought could be answered here.


So they don't have cameras covering pedestrian precincts in city centres and road interchanges in the US? Or were you assuming there's one on every street corner like in V for Vendetta?

I would've thought CCTV is no more prevalent in the UK than it is in the US.
Posted by: drakino

Re: Virginia Tech - 22/04/2007 23:19

Quote:
So they don't have cameras covering pedestrian precincts in city centres and road interchanges in the US? Or were you assuming there's one on every street corner like in V for Vendetta?

I would've thought CCTV is no more prevalent in the UK than it is in the US.


From my own personal experiences of being in London in 2004, it seems the number of cameras in use outside of private businesses is much higher. Using Austin and Los Angeles as a basis, about the only time I noticed cameras outside were the few scattered around the highways, and in LA at many intersections. Where as in London, I saw a lot more on the outside of building, not specifically monitoring entrances, and a seemingly higher density watching the roads. Add to that the many speed boxes (never seen one personally in the US, but I know a few are out there), and the difference is noticeable.

Then there is stories about talking CCTV installs and pictures of CCTV vans.
Posted by: frog51

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 01:47

I'm afraid UK has a much higher camera per person ratio than the US. We lead the Western World :-(
Posted by: RobotCaleb

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 02:18

Quote:
Quote:
Just an actual honest questioning of the CCTV practices there that I thought could be answered here.


So they don't have cameras covering pedestrian precincts in city centres and road interchanges in the US? Or were you assuming there's one on every street corner like in V for Vendetta?

I would've thought CCTV is no more prevalent in the UK than it is in the US.


You guys are practically Big Brother compared to us. Although, I do have a camera setup at my front door.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 07:15

Quote:

You guys are practically Big Brother compared to us.

Don't start recursing in threads - you'll break the BBS
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:20

Quote:
Why anyone would have a problem with it is beyond me.... unless they've got something to hide.

This is always a terrible, terrible, argument. I realize that the UK gov't isn't nearly as advanced in its fascism as the current US gov't is, but if that infrastructure is in place and and it does head in that direction, are you still going to have the same argument when they decide that what you're doing is wrong?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:27

Quote:
I would've thought CCTV is no more prevalent in the UK than it is in the US.

Here's an interesting article about CCTV in the UK. Notable quotes:

Quote:
According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.


Quote:
On the wall outside [George Orwell's] former residence - flat number 27B - where [he] lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:45

Quote:
Quote:
Why anyone would have a problem with it is beyond me.... unless they've got something to hide.

This is always a terrible, terrible, argument. I realize that the UK gov't isn't nearly as advanced in its fascism as the current US gov't is, but if that infrastructure is in place and and it does head in that direction, are you still going to have the same argument when they decide that what you're doing is wrong?


Having no interest in religion and very little interest in politics I'd love to know what interest the government could possibly have in me.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:46

Assuming that that 20% number is accurate, compare that to the UK having less than 1% of the total Earth's population and less than 0.2% of the Earth's total land mass.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:51

Maybe they'll decide that your ethnic heritage means you need to be segregated. Maybe they'll decide that since you're university-educated you need to be killed. Who knows? And even if you're as vanilla as they come, you should be equally concerned about what that means to the rest of the citizenry. Also, you may not be political now, but what about when they start cracking down on something you would be political about? Would you have second thoughts about marching in a protest when you considered all those cameras? What does that mean to the state of protest in general?

Look, I don't think that the UK is a bad place to live, nor do I think that the UK government would set up these cameras for the notion of controlling its populace, but once that infrastructure is there, it becomes available for abuse, both above and below board.
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:52

Quote:
Assuming that that 20% number is accurate, compare that to the UK having less than 1% of the total Earth's population and less than 0.2% of the Earth's total land mass.


<dons tinfoil hat>You're assuming you can see all the cameras in the US</dons tinfoil hat>
Posted by: andym

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 12:57

It's certainly something that does cross my mind very occasionally, but not enough to make me lose sleep over it. To be honest I think it's more likely to happen in the US first, it would seem to me a lot has changed in the last 10 years.
Posted by: andy

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 13:50

Quote:
but once that infrastructure is there, it becomes available for abuse, both above and below board.


It isn't as if they are all central controlled, a huge number of the cameras are in fact privately owned, probably don't work and if they do someone has probably forgot to put a tape in the VCR.

The ones that are linked to a central control room are very much local efforts, with some spotty security guard sat watching them.

If some future government did decide to cross the line, it would only take an evening of direct action to disable all the cameras in the country.
Posted by: peter

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 13:56

Quote:
The ones that are linked to a central control room are very much local efforts, with some spotty security guard sat watching them.

If some future government did decide to cross the line, it would only take an evening of direct action to disable all the cameras in the country.

One time you do always get cameras being used for political goals (although in an inverted sense) is when there's been a big protest in London: the organisers always say 500,000 people turned up, the police and government always put the figure nearer 43, twelve of whom were bewildered tourists who thought it was the queue for Madame Tussaud's, and all the congestion cameras which could settle the issue one way or the other turn out to have been switched off "for operational reasons".

Peter
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 14:45

It only takes slow evolution of the CCTV infrastructure to reach those levels, though. Here's another step: Police propose minimum image quality standards for CCTV systems, including private and commercial ones. Again, I'm sure that the notion is that it'll be easier to identify criminals captured on camera if the quality is better. But it would also be easier if those cameras were tied directly to the police station. And then it would be easier if those images were constantly processed to find wanted people. And then it would make sense to start profiling actions.

Again, I'm not saying that any of those things are going to happen, but I think it's worth it to attempt to make sure that they don't, or at least be aware of the situation so that you can see when further steps are taken along those lines.
Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 17:33

Quote:
Quote:
but once that infrastructure is there, it becomes available for abuse, both above and below board.


If some future government did decide to cross the line, it would only take an evening of direct action to disable all the cameras in the country.


ah - see, that's what we need the guns for! Shooting CCTV cameras.
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: Virginia Tech - 23/04/2007 22:47

Quote:
Quote:
but once that infrastructure is there, it becomes available for abuse, both above and below board.


It isn't as if they are all central controlled, a huge number of the cameras are in fact privately owned, probably don't work and if they do someone has probably forgot to put a tape in the VCR.



I've never seen the workings for the "4.2 million cameras" figure, it sounds like it's rife with double-counting and all sorts of logical errors. For example I have no less than four commerical-grade CCTV cameras in this room, none of them in operation, and another four cameras that would be counted as a "CCTV camera" if you were making a total of all consumer and commercial purchases.

Likewise, the article about George Orwell's house says the "...view of the tree-filled gardens outside the flat is under 24-hour surveillance from two cameras perched on traffic lights". FFS these are radar motion sensors used to detect a vehicle's presence!