ASO
 

I had a call yesterday from a council official wanting a bit of a chat about
ASO. He had been 'tasked' with finding out if there will be a rubbish
disposal problem come ASO. I tried to explain as best as I could.

Come ASO I wonder if the council will bring another bin to add to the row we
have. It would of course be labelled 'analogue TV equipment'.


Bill

ASO
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
I had a call yesterday from a council official wanting a bit of a chat
about ASO. He had been 'tasked' with finding out if there will be a
rubbish disposal problem come ASO. I tried to explain as best as I
could.

Come ASO I wonder if the council will bring another bin to add to the
row we have. It would of course be labelled 'analogue TV equipment'.


Bill
After the first paragraph I was looking forwards to your suggestions in
the second for disposing of the rubbish riggers who were cashing in by,
for example, fitting "digital aerials" for old ladies living in the
shadow of Crystal Palace.

Perhaps another bin labelled "for Soylent Green"?

--
Robin

ASO
 

Bill Wright wrote:

I had a call yesterday from a council official wanting a bit of a chat about
ASO. He had been 'tasked' with finding out if there will be a rubbish
disposal problem come ASO. I tried to explain as best as I could.

Come ASO I wonder if the council will bring another bin to add to the row we
have. It would of course be labelled 'analogue TV equipment'.

TV gear now falls under e-waste regulations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6250080.stm

Who is responsible for disposing of my ancient TV (I can't even
remember who my parents bought it from) when I finally get around to
buying a new one?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

ASO
 

"Phil Cook" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright wrote:

I had a call yesterday from a council official wanting a bit of a chat
about
ASO. He had been 'tasked' with finding out if there will be a rubbish
disposal problem come ASO. I tried to explain as best as I could.

Come ASO I wonder if the council will bring another bin to add to the row
we
have. It would of course be labelled 'analogue TV equipment'.

TV gear now falls under e-waste regulations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6250080.stm

Who is responsible for disposing of my ancient TV (I can't even
remember who my parents bought it from) when I finally get around to
buying a new one?


Your local Council.
--


JohnT

ASO
 

"JohnT" wrote in message
Who is responsible for disposing of my ancient TV (I can't even
remember who my parents bought it from) when I finally get around to
buying a new one?


Your local Council.
--


Since most councils are considering charging for all waste disposal by
weight, £1 a kilo being mentioned CRT TVs will be expensive to dispose of.
Possibly disposing of dust covered TVs in the attic now would be wise.

ASO
 

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"JohnT" wrote in message
Who is responsible for disposing of my ancient TV (I can't even
remember who my parents bought it from) when I finally get around to
buying a new one?


Your local Council.
--


Since most councils are considering charging for all waste disposal by
weight, £1 a kilo being mentioned CRT TVs will be expensive to dispose
of. Possibly disposing of dust covered TVs in the attic now would be wise.


I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new WEEE
regulations, which came into effect today.
--


JohnT

ASO
 

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"JohnT" wrote in message
Who is responsible for disposing of my ancient TV (I can't even
remember who my parents bought it from) when I finally get around to
buying a new one?


Your local Council.
--


Since most councils are considering charging for all waste disposal by
weight, £1 a kilo being mentioned CRT TVs will be expensive to dispose
of. Possibly disposing of dust covered TVs in the attic now would be wise.

No, don't worry. Everyone will just leave their old stuff in the hedge
bottoms on the rural roads.

Bill

ASO
 

"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new WEEE
regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of disposal
already, and are certainly considering a weight base structure for all
waste.

ASO
 

buddenbrooks wrote:
"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new
WEEE regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of
disposal already, and are certainly considering a weight base
structure for all waste.

You imagine wrongly, again.

ASO
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 01:53:13 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


Since most councils are considering charging for all waste disposal by
weight, £1 a kilo being mentioned CRT TVs will be expensive to dispose
of. Possibly disposing of dust covered TVs in the attic now would be wise.

No, don't worry. Everyone will just leave their old stuff in the hedge
bottoms on the rural roads.

Spot on. If the rulemakers are foolish enough to make it difficult or
expensive for people to Do The Right Thing, the inevitable result is
that people will Do The Wrong Thing.

Then they'll probably try to tackle that situation with all the usual
conspicuous but inefective measures - even more rules, or heavier
fines, or increased police powers, which of course won't work.

Rod.

ASO
 

Then they'll probably try to tackle that situation with all the usual
conspicuous but inefective measures - even more rules, or heavier
fines, or increased police powers, which of course won't work.

You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you please
but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement, it's a waste of
time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held mobiles in cars is.
AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm merely pointing out that it
is illegal but that it is not policed making the legislation almost
worthless.

Paul DS.

ASO
 

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:


You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you please
but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement, it's a waste of
time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held mobiles in cars is.
AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm merely pointing out that it
is illegal but that it is not policed making the legislation almost
worthless.

I still don't understand why we needed a specific law about mobile
phones at all, since the reckless use of them could easily be
interpreted in terms of existing laws, such as "driving without due
care and attention". If the existing laws were not being adequately
enforced, it might have made more sense to try to find out why,
instead of inventing new ones that wouldn't be enforced either for the
same reason.

Rod.

ASO
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:


You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you
please but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement,
it's a waste of time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held
mobiles in cars is. AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm
merely pointing out that it is illegal but that it is not policed
making the legislation almost worthless.

I still don't understand why we needed a specific law about mobile
phones at all, since the reckless use of them could easily be
interpreted in terms of existing laws, such as "driving without due
care and attention". If the existing laws were not being adequately
enforced, it might have made more sense to try to find out why,
instead of inventing new ones that wouldn't be enforced either for the
same reason.

I agree that lack of enforcement was and still is a big problem.
The trouble with the existing "not being in full control" laws was that it
was a bit grey over exactly what needed to have happened , and it wasn't
something that could be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.
That meant that if someone was stopped by the police for driving while on
the phone it would mean half a day to complete the paperwork and a day in
court for one or two police officers which is a huge waste of time and
money.
Under the new legislation it's a fixed penalty which can be issued in a few
minutes and doesn't tie up officers for anywhere near as long. If someone
challenges it and goes not guilty then it takes the same amount of time as
before , but as there isn't much "wiggle room" with the new law there aren't
many people that do this - people know that it's illegal , they know that
they have been caught and were in the wrong and they just pay up.

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this sort
of thing though


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

ASO
 

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
buddenbrooks wrote:
"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new
WEEE regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of
disposal already, and are certainly considering a weight base
structure for all waste.

You imagine wrongly, again.


I did'nt, maybe it was the BBC news saying it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5074558.stm

ASO
 

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this
sort of thing though



It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling the
maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on petty
enforcement.

ASO
 

buddenbrooks wrote:


"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this
sort of thing though

It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling the
maximum speed of a car to the local limit.

There has been an experiment running with that technology. The theory
is that you would get a discount on your insurance if you were using
it.

Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on petty
enforcement.

Indeed, but people will moan about the drivers of legacy vehicles
getting away with it.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

ASO
 

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new WEEE
regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of
disposal already, and are certainly considering a weight base structure
for all waste.

Coventry charges a flat rate of £20 per item for the collection of
electrical items. According to a leaflet they sent me a desktop PC, monitor
and keyboard would count as three separate items so £60 total. You can take
them to the city dump in a car free of charge but not in a van as that then
counts as "industrial waste".

(kim)

ASO
 

In message ,
buddenbrooks Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with
this sort of thing though



It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling
the maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on
petty enforcement.

Can't see this sort of technology coming into widespread use in the
foreseeable future. Too many safety and privacy/civil liberty issues...
not to mention the cost.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

ASO
 

In article , ChrisM wrote:
It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling
the maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on
petty enforcement.

Can't see this sort of technology coming into widespread use in the*
foreseeable future. Too many safety and privacy/civil liberty issues...
not to mention the cost.

Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five minutes
to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings, region
coding of DVDs and so on.

Rod.

ASO
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five minutes
to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings, region
coding of DVDs and so on.



No one has hacked SKYs digital encryption system.
No one has hacked the mobile phone network system. Spoofed individual
phones but not the system.
There are many hack proof systems in place.
In any case a car caught speeding would draw attention to the fact that
the system had been illegally tampered with.

ASO
 

In message ,
buddenbrooks Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .. .
Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five
minutes to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings,
region coding of DVDs and so on.



No one has hacked SKYs digital encryption system.
No one has hacked the mobile phone network system. Spoofed individual
phones but not the system.
There are many hack proof systems in place.
In any case a car caught speeding would draw attention to the fact
that the system had been illegally tampered with.

But the simplest case of hacking would be of an individual unit.
It might be difficult to hack, as the software (or whatever) would probably
be an integral part of the cars computer systems, but 'hack proof'? Well,
they've said that about a lot of systems, and it's been a matter of months
before it happens.
As far as a 'system' What are we talking about here? Individual cars that
know where you are and what the speed limit is, and attempt to prevent you
driving too fast, or a national system that tracks every car, and
automatically issues speeding fines!!
I'll admit that hacking a national 'speeding database' could be very
difficult, but I'd never say that it couldn't be done...

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

ASO
 

In article , Buddenbrooks wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message*
.. .
* Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five
minutes
to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings, region
coding of DVDs and so on.


**No one has hacked SKYs digital encryption system.
*No one has hacked the mobile phone network system. Spoofed individual*
phones but not the system.
There are many hack proof systems in place.

There are many systems that haven't been hacked YET.

It's also possible that some of these allegedly unhackable systems
actually have been hacked, but the people who have done it are not the
stereotypical attention-seeking adolescents to which this sort of activity
is usually attributed, but have simply kept quiet about it.

In any case a car caught speeding would draw attention to the fact that
the system had been illegally tampered with.*

You'd think so, but I see plenty of cars behaving in an attention-grabbing
way every day and nothing seems to stop them.

Rod.

ASO
 

"ChrisM" wrote in message
...
In message ,
buddenbrooks Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
, but 'hack proof'? Well,
they've said that about a lot of systems, and it's been a matter of months
before it happens.

It could be hacked, but being caught in a radar trap would get you a fine
for both speeding and modifying the unit so as to permit a crime. The agency
that hacked the computer could also be liable to conspiricy charges and if
the car killed someone, manslaughter.

As far as a 'system' What are we talking about here? Individual cars that
know where you are and what the speed limit is, and attempt to prevent you
driving too fast,
Indeed, if you are in a 30 mile limit then that is the maximum the car
will do. I know people object saying they then cannot 'accelerate out of
trouble', but there is always that problem, you have a maximum speed and if
you are near it you can not use acceleration to get out of trouble. Perhaps
allow over speed but a running fine, say a voice saying 1 pound 2 pound 3
pound ...
so you can speed for safety but it will cost you.

or a national system that tracks every car, and
automatically issues speeding fines!!
No , safer to stop speeding rather than raise revenue from it.

I'll admit that hacking a national 'speeding database' could be very
difficult, but I'd never say that it couldn't be done...


Indeed , but it would have to be un-hacked for MOTs and never get caught
in a speed trap.

ASO
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
You'd think so, but I see plenty of cars behaving in an
attention-grabbing
way every day and nothing seems to stop them.

Indeed, that is because there are plenty of such cars and few police.
Change the rules so the Police Officer is allowed to keep any car he stops
speeding with a hacked EMU ...

ASO
 

In article , Buddenbrooks wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message*
.. .
* You'd think so, but I see plenty of cars behaving in an*
attention-grabbing
way every day and nothing seems to stop them.

**Indeed, that is because there are plenty of such cars and few police.
Change the rules so the Police Officer is allowed to keep any car he
stops*
speeding with a hacked *EMU ...*

It wouldn't work. There's already a death sentence for dangerous driving
and it doesn't stop people.

I've heard it suggested that some sort of psychological profiling should
be applied as part of the driving test to see if applicants have a
suitably mature attitude towards other people to be allowed to drive in
the first place, and while there would be a lot of problems putting this
into practice, the fundamental principle behind it is the most sensible
idea I've heard yet. This would be a genuine attempt to solve the problem
itself instead of battling away forever at its symptoms, and never
winning, while many more people continue to die. I'm certain that the vast
majority of accidents on the roads are caused not incompetence but the
fact that a lot of drivers are simply arseholes and don't care.

Rod.