More government stupidity.

[Andy Hall]

On what basis? The correlation argument doesn't hold water. If it were, why aren't the police more succesful at detecting petty crime?

Pointless.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 12:38:38 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

Look back up the tread and see how many people it is.

No.

Although the police do frequently say that it is.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 12:39:56 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

In your opinion, which isn't getting much agreement.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:19:43 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

There is.

Humm, let me think "we have a simple test that says this bloke is very likely to be a miscreant". Is that a useful test for detecting miscreants? Even plod can work that one out.

[Roland Perry]

Abuse, excellent.

But is not a replacement for passports. You still need a passport to sign up, and the operator reserve the right to also examine your passport. But yes, it is a start.

I'm sure everyone agrees that large government IT projects have a poor track record. Large multi-government IT projects? Give me a break. And ones that will enable iris-scanning at every border crossing in the world - you'd need that to be able to throw away the paper passport.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 12:44:24 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

No, you started with the view that something else would be better, then dismissed "something better" as too expensive.

[Roland Perry]

In message , at 14:21:08 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:

They'd be even less successful without.

[Graeme]

C'mon, that was all too early on a Sunday morning for me ;-)

You'll be offering a box of Meltis Fruits next, or even a packet of Spangles in my Christmas stocking.

[Mark Goodge]

All the evidence points to them being a useful tool.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

You don't appear to understand what "correlation" means.

They'd be worse at it without them.

Your argument is pointless. So is arguing with you, since you seem unwilling or incapable of ever considering any point of view that doesn't originate in your own preconceived notions.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message , at

15:01:07 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Mark Goodge remarked:

He's trolling, and had quite a good run. Shall we ignore him now?

[Andy Hall]

.. and this is meant to illustrate what exactly?

There's at least some hope...

Well... you would hardly expect them to say otherwise, would you? They would also say yes to anything that was actually useful as well.

[Andy Hall]

You mean from the scientific sample of three on a Usenet group?

[Andy Hall]

Cows, pigs and sheep are good to eat. They are quadrupeds. Therefore all quadrupeds are good to eat.

Perfectly correlated. Perfectly untrue.

[Andy Hall]

So please explain why the police are so useless at catching petty thieves and the like.

[Pies]

Bzzzt! Not a correlation, and not even logic. Merely extrapolation from a limited sample set.

[Pies]

Apart from the paperwork?

[Andy Hall]

Not really. Just a comment.

Yes. Once.

Leave out the words "IT" and "large" and that would be completely correct.

So outsource the whole thing with penalties.

[Andy Hall]

Which indicates that something entirely more useful is appropriate.

[Andy Hall]

I know precisely what correlation means.

This does not make a justification.

Not really. The preconceived notion is remaining with the status quo of archaic coloured bits of paper. I've simply suggested that they are superfluous.