"Tom Anderson" wrote :
And why would you think that, eh? Clearly, you're trying to make me think
that i'm surrounded by paranoids, aren't you? AREN'T YOU?

Well, we are surrounded by paranoids, aren't we? AREN'T WE?

The key would have been that the reader on a bus doesn't currently
know where the bus is, so it wouldn't give any journey information.- Hide quoted text -


The reader will think it is at the fare stage displayed on the
driver's Wayfarer machine.
However, the accuracy of this is dependent on the driver manually
updating the fare stage.

The boarding stop was listed on Oystercard paper statements originally.

On 3 Feb, 16:36, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Martin Petrov wrote:
No wonder the Guardian is losing readers every year.

Note - it's a "comment" in the newspaper, rather than an editorial or
some such.

Weeelll, not quite. The writers/bloggers/whatever on Comment is Free are
essentially columnists - they're published online, rather than on paper,
but they're selected, paid and edited by the Guardian. In this particular
case, Nigel Willmott is also the real paper's letters editor (he also
appears to be a major Acorn Archimedes nerd - good man!). I don't think
you can assume anything he says is the Graun's official party line, but
the paper is ultimately responsible for his output.

Mind you, their general policy on CiF does seem to be to encourage the
writing of brain-shatteringly absurd pieces (usually from some kind of
caricatured hard-left/progressive position), presumably so that the
ensuing storm of controversy will attract page views.


Which is one of the reasons I generally steer clear of getting
embroiled in it and sites like it - the engineered controversy aspect
does often seem rather blatant, and it in turn attracts a certain type
of comment and/or commentator. And at the end of the day after the
shouting has finished and the debate has died down I'm not really sure
how much the world has actually changed. That said, I have been
impressed by some of the well argued and reason comments thereon, so I
guess if my opinion is informed or changed by them then perhaps my
world may have changed a little. Though I don't actually read it that
often - I haven't read the piece the OP refers to (though I suspect I
could write it albeit in a rather less literate manner), basically
because I just can't be bothered to get worked up about it.

I have to admit when I first came across people banging on about 'CiF'
I wondered why there was this interest in toilet cleaners. There's a
joke in there somewhere...

On 3 Feb, 16:03, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote ...

If I ran the buses, you'd be expected to touch in AND out on them too -
much
better info for service planning.
Don't think that would work remotely well in London whatsoever.

Probably too late now - but if it had been the rule from day 1, and there'd
have been the risk of overpaying if you didn't touch out (maybe with a point
at bus stops, like at Docklands stations), then it would have been "That's
how they work; live with it".

If the touch-out reader was on the bus, then I'd say many people would
touch-out as soon as they could whenever it was activated so they paid
the lowest fare. Dishonest maybe, but hardly difficult to envisage.
Apart from that there'd be the general fuss factor of having to touch-
out on leaving the bus - this would inevitably slow things up as
people touched-out on exit. If you had readers at bus stops you'd then
be talking about an *enormous* deployment of kit - totally
unpractical, basically undoable.


Would have been far, far more sensible.

Why?

On 3 Feb, 16:31, MIG wrote:

On 3 Feb, 15:54, Mizter T wrote:

On 3 Feb, 15:38, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

(snip)

Mind you, I was on a Bendie (73) one day; I hadn't touched in, though I
usually do, as I had my arms full of junk - I saw a seat and dived for it.

Ticket Inspector: * * You haven't touched in
Me: * * * * * * * * * * * *I didn't think I had to - it's a Gold Card
Ticket Inspector * *No, You don't *have* to.
Me: * * * * * * * * * * * {Quizzical look}
Ticket Inspector: * *But if you were kidnapped, we'd be able to trace your
last movements
Me: * * * * * * * * * * * *Thanks. (Wonders: was that really an inspector,
or was it a tin foil hat person in disguise?)

I also wonder what Guardian Man has to fear; as well as giving honest men
nightmares (as if!), Oyster can help in catching crims. And has done. Oyster
and cameras are a great combination. Did I say CAMERAS? Oh my God! Cameras!
Closed circuit! MI5/6/7 ... 43
[...]

The key would have been that the reader on a bus doesn't currently
know where the bus is, so it wouldn't give any journey information.

?

The reader stores the times of cards being touched-in, this can be
tallied with the CCTV - though both systems need to have the right
time set on them. Also, I think the bus readers possibly do have some
idea of where on the route they are.

On 3 Feb, 16:56, Matthew Dickinson
wrote:

The key would have been that the reader on a bus doesn't currently
know where the bus is, so it wouldn't give any journey information.- Hide quoted text -

The reader will think it is at the fare stage displayed on the
driver's Wayfarer machine.
However, the accuracy of this is dependent on the driver manually
updating the fare stage.

I'm not sure of how important this is now we have flat fares.


The boarding stop was listed on Oystercard paper statements originally.

Really? Most interesting. The actual boarding stop or the last
'principal' bus stop (or beginning of the most recent fare stage)?

Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Tom Barry" wrote...
... The point of CiF is that you get all sorts of different opinions;
Thatcherite throatslashers, neocon Israeli apologists, PC do-gooders,
frothing feminists, eco-zealots... The great benefit of all this is that
it keeps a lot of morons happily flaming each other and off the streets. I
comment there quite a lot, of course.

Your secret is safe with us ;o)


I am Andrew Gilligan, and so's my wife.

Tom

Andrew Heenan wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote :
And why would you think that, eh? Clearly, you're trying to make me think
that i'm surrounded by paranoids, aren't you? AREN'T YOU?

Well, we are surrounded by paranoids, aren't we? AREN'T WE?



That's what they *want* you to think...

Tom

On 3 Feb, 16:27, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

"Mizter T" wrote ...

since when does a newspaper have to stand by the opinion of those who
contribute pieces for it?

Come on; that's *a tad unfair. I'm not suggesting they stand by opinions;
it's about the level of debate. Those arguments would not inspire me to buy
the Guardian.

Fair enough, in that case the 'Comment is free' section on the
Guardian's website has done the opposite of what it is intended to do,
which is to get people to engage with the Guardian more and either buy
their paper or visit their website lots.

It should be noted (as it is by Tom Anderson downthread) that the
'Comment is free' (or 'Cif') website is something of a separate entity
to the newspaper. AIUI the idea basically grew out of the notion of
letting people have their say in response to comment pieces that
appeared in the main newspaper. However with 'Cif' many/most of the
comment pieces only ever appear online - there are some from the
paper's own writers, others from various 'movers and shakers' etc -
indeed I'm unclear as to what the renumeration arrangements are for
'Cif' pieces. There are also short 'Cif' piece or two that then go on
to appear in the main paper in a small column - I'm not sure of
whether this is a case of the best on offer being picked or what.


And Andrew, people might also make judgements based on the
ease on which others dispatch judgements on all and sundry in
*the world as well!

I'd not have it any other way; That's what I love (and hate) about usenet;
you can say *exactly* what you think - and you then accept the consequences
of that.

My idea of free speech; I never judge people on the Internet - I judge their
words. There has to be an assumption they *intended* those words, but those
who spout twaddle have an absolute right to be told that they are spouting
twaddle.

And I'm more than happy to be told when I spout twaddle, which is much of
the time; I'm equally happy (for example) when a Boris fan insults me
because of my (usual) support for Ken-like policies. And I do my best to
give as good as I get. That's the way it works.

I come here to learn and share views (and occasionally to educate); I also
come here for entertainment.

Twaz ever thus. Anyone who mouths off on Usenet surely accepts that?


Fair enough. I guess I'm less of one for the more abrasive 'mouthing
off' and 'giving as good as I get' style here on usenet - I like the
fact that it can be a great arena for discussing issues in a fairly
well reasoned and considered manner (operative words there being "can
be" - not "is", just "can be"!). I guess my between-the-lines comment
on some elements of your posting style wasn't really that cryptic was
it?! Well, I suppose I'd essentially stand by that, it seems you can
be a bit quick to jump in there and throw in the hand grenade labelled
'obvious' or 'self-evident' when I think things are often a bit more
complicated than that. Perhaps in part this is for your own
entertainment. But there are all sorts of posting styles here on
usenet and there's no rules that dictate a certain way of posting - I
likewise find some of the comments made by others here intriguing for
their brash certainty too. Just so long as you know that just because
an outlandish comment you may have made wasn't challenged doesn't mean
it is unchallengeable! ;-)

On 3 Feb, 18:13, Tom Barry wrote:

Andrew Heenan wrote:

"Tom Barry" wrote...
... The point of CiF is that you get all sorts of different opinions;
Thatcherite throatslashers, neocon Israeli apologists, PC do-gooders,
frothing feminists, eco-zealots... *The great benefit of all this is that
it keeps a lot of morons happily flaming each other and off the streets. I
comment there quite a lot, of course.

Your secret is safe with us *;o)

I am Andrew Gilligan, and so's my wife.


No, I'm Andrew Gilligan, and so is my melting snowman.