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.
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.
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.
In message , at 12:39:56 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:
In your opinion, which isn't getting much agreement.
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.
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.
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.
In message , at 14:21:08 on Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Andy Hall remarked:
They'd be even less successful without.
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.
All the evidence points to them being a useful tool.
Mark
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
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?
.. 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.
You mean from the scientific sample of three on a Usenet group?
Cows, pigs and sheep are good to eat. They are quadrupeds. Therefore all quadrupeds are good to eat.
Perfectly correlated. Perfectly untrue.
So please explain why the police are so useless at catching petty thieves and the like.
Bzzzt! Not a correlation, and not even logic. Merely extrapolation from a limited sample set.
Apart from the paperwork?
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.
Which indicates that something entirely more useful is appropriate.
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.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.