sams on April 19, 2011, 04:24:01 am
So the plot advance by Rhonda getting the inner Pedo Bear of her soldier to jump over a 12 years old and almost get shot ?

UW being pedophiles won't make bad PR for them :-\

Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 07:27:43 am
I'm betting the 12 year-old is fully aware of what's going on, just like the vast majority of those around the hotel. Rhonda's contempt for Cererean society is blinding her to what's happening around her. A 12 year-old with a gun must seem like an obscenity to her, and her statist ideology permits her to think of her as a tool rather than a girl. As a PO, she'd know, where possibly the rest of the company doesn't, that subjugating Ceres is vital to the UW's survival. The plan to provoke an incident hasn't been going well at all, so she has to be a little desperate.

Like to add that Rhonda is augmented nicely and fills out that jumpsuit very well -- or does that belong on another thread? :)

Azure Priest on April 19, 2011, 08:55:44 am
I knew pointing ALL of the cameras at the hotel was a mistake.

It could easily have taken the form of a sniper shooting one or more of the people "fraternizing" there from outside the camera's field of vision.

SandySandfort on April 19, 2011, 09:41:49 am
I knew pointing ALL of the cameras at the hotel was a mistake.

Nice pick-up!

Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 11:55:30 am
Quote
Nice pick-up!

You have got to be kidding. All those people, including Guy, haven't been tracking the movements of every member of a company? Guy knows the UW the best; I'll bet he wasn't fooled.

SandySandfort on April 19, 2011, 12:26:06 pm
Quote
Nice pick-up!

You have got to be kidding. All those people, including Guy, haven't been tracking the movements of every member of a company? Guy knows the UW the best; I'll bet he wasn't fooled.

I'm not kidding at all. The Belt is not a surveillance society like in 1984, modern England or New York City. Sure, the plaza has some security cameras, but it is a large commercial area. Even then, Ed had to put out the word for videographers. Azure Priest was spot on.

Holt on April 19, 2011, 05:41:22 pm
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed. Hang on let me go see if I can find the cameras in my home....hmm no cameras. In fact I don't recall having seen any cameras outside private property or local council buildings or the army barracks anywhere in York.
You know the last time I actually saw cameras observing the streets was in Manchester. It's more common in London as I recall but London is not England.

Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 06:03:24 pm
Quote
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed.

The UK has more CCTV's per capita than any other national entity in the world. I'm reasonably sure that most people who live there know that.

Archonix on April 19, 2011, 06:27:22 pm
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.

Xavin on April 19, 2011, 06:44:23 pm
Quote
Modern England is a surveillance society? Shocking that we haven't noticed.

The UK has more CCTV's per capita than any other national entity in the world. I'm reasonably sure that most people who live there know that.

Lots of people here have heard that, and it might be true. It does rather assume that we a) know how many CCTV cameras there are here, and b) we know how many there are in other countries - neither of which appears to be the case.

The figure commonly thrown around is 4.2million cameras in the UK (approx 1 for every 14 people), but that's based on some pretty shonky statistics from 2002:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/factcheck+how+many+cctv+cameras/2291167.html

The police claim it's more like 1.85 million (approx 1 for every 32 people): http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2011/03/01/only-1-8-million-cameras-in-uk-claims-acpo-lead-on-cctv

Frankly, that still seems to be a lot to me, and there seems to be little evidence that they actually do much good for their stated purpose (reducing/solving crime):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3360287&page=1
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23412867-tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved.do
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-are-cctv-cameras-a-waste-of-money-in-the-fight-against-crime-822079.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cctv-in-the-spotlight-one-crime-solved-for-every-1000-cameras-1776774.html

Holt on April 19, 2011, 06:58:46 pm
I know it. It is more common around Manchester (they just started putting up those Trafficmaster traffic cameras on all the A-roads around here too) but I've seen plenty of cameras in York last few times I was there. They're usually quite high up and look fairly innocuous most of the time but there are more around than you may realise. Every single bus has at least one camera on it, all trains have them now, the railway station has loads of them, most traffic junctions have at least one somewhere. Yes, even in York, they're just more obvious around my way because they paint them a more visible colour.

Yes buses and trains are private property. A private company can put a camera in its private property.
You'd be wise to note that many of the "high up and out of the way" cameras are private property observing private property.
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with. You've got traffic cameras which aren't exactly about oppressing the masses just making you not decide to drive like a lunatic and kill some people.


Aardvark on April 19, 2011, 08:49:14 pm
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)

Holt on April 20, 2011, 06:00:38 am
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)

Well we don't exactly have many of those here. Those we do have tend to stay in London or the major cities. This isn't the USA where our police are constantly fondling their penis replacements itching for a chance to shoot someone.

sams on April 20, 2011, 07:01:07 am
Quote
The number of "big bad evil government cameras" is so minuscule it's not worth bothering with.

That's because there are no "big bad evil government cameras" in existence, only "big, bad, evil government people." :)

Well we don't exactly have many of those here. Those we do have tend to stay in London or the major cities. This isn't the USA where our police are constantly fondling their penis replacements itching for a chance to shoot someone.

Well but it is true that in London they do have lots of freaking cameras :P

Maybe the other towns aren't that big you know ... I can tell you that as a Dime British  ;D

spudit on April 20, 2011, 10:29:36 am
Dry spell here and so I'm too busy to do more than lurk, but Holt, "penis replacements"?

Paging Dr. Freud. Dr Freud to Mr. Holt's room, stat.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?