Survey Says To UK — Repeal Laws of Thermodynamics 208
mostxlnt writes "As we noted, the new Tory UK government has launched a website asking its subjects which laws they'd most like repealed. There are proposals up for repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics: Second, Third, and all (discussion thread on this one closed by a moderator). One comment on the Third [now apparently deleted] elucidated: 'Without the Third Law of Thermodynamics, it would be possible to build machines that would last forever and provide an endless source of cheap energy. thus solving both potential crises in energy supply as well as solving the greenhouse gas problem in one step... simples... eh?'"
When you open up the floodgates... (Score:2, Insightful)
idiots pour through.
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's far from a "real opportunity to be involved in politics", unless by that statement you mean it's "an opportunity to have their views ignored by politicians".
Worse than that, it's an opportunity for politicians to selectively "hear" opinions which support a particular effort or view, and ignore the rest. If everyone were being ignored uniformly, that would at least be fair.
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:5, Interesting)
Idiots flow from areas with fewer idiots to areas with more idiots, but it takes work to reverse the flow and decrease the idiot density of one (low-density) area while increasing the idiot density of another, higher-idiot-density area.
Now demonstrated to be false since the discovery of Quantum Bogodynamics, back in the early days of IT. http://wikibin.org/articles/quantum-bogodynamics.html [wikibin.org] Idiots flow from idiot-dense areas to low idiot density - non-idiots must work hard to either keep idiots out. This force is transmitted by an Idiot giving up a particle of Bogon which is absorbed by a non-idiot. Thus manifesting as an attractive force.
This is why the most beautifully engineered and brilliant machines will fail in the most spectacular way when the strongest bogon emitters are invariably attracted to them. This is why Lamborghinis seem to spontanously catch on fire but that old Toyota Corolla you can't can't kill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:5, Funny)
Did parent and GP just describe the influx of people from high-replacement rural areas to low-replacement urban areas, or did I miss something?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fox News has prior art. You're gonna get sued.
Re: (Score:2)
But all it would take to reduce the idiot flux in a particular place (say my office) would be to place an idiot detecting demon at the front door. When an idiot approaches the demon closes the door. When a non-idiot approaches the demon opens the door.
Now to explain this to management...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...don't you hate it when you take an analogy way too far and still, somehow, it holds?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to visit Maxwell's house. I bet he has good coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Nahhh. The idiot burns his damned coffee. If you can find the Folger's demon, he has pretty decent coffee. To get better coffee, you have to get fresh ground and freshly roasted beans. But, you probably knew that already . . .
Re: (Score:2)
or just go to Tim Horton's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When you open up the floodgates... (Score:5, Insightful)
idiots pour through.
Whereas most smart people in Britain would rather repeal the law that Americans don't get British sarcasm and wit, but sadly that also seems to be an unchangeable law of nature...
Looking for a genius or an Ig? (Score:5, Funny)
If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.
The far likelier outcome, of course, is to be given an Ignobel prize, for a fruitless and ill-conceived waste of effort. I suspect the UK government can look forward to at least an honorable mention at the next Ig award ceremonies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you manage to break any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, you can expect to be lauded, copied, co-author a stream of high-impact papers, get offered some cushy sinecures, and eventually receive a Nobel prize.
...which may be some consolation as your body tempreature spontaneously drops to 100 degrees below absolute zero...
Re: (Score:2)
When you are caught break a regular law (speeding, larceny, etc.), you can expect to be punished with a fine or worse.
Over here, you get a citation for speeding (bad thing), and a citation for catching a large fish (a good thing). Confusing! What if you catch a large fish while speeding? Do the citations offset like in American football?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First Law? (Score:2)
Re:First Law? (Score:5, Funny)
These aren't complete idiots. Everyone knows the First Law is what prevents robots doing harm to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know why the scientists keep making them.
Old Glory Robot Insurance; For when the metal one come for YOU!
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
Re:First Law? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I come from, no one can spell it, let alone talk about it. They would get tongue tied trying to pronounce it, which would call for a trip to the emergency room. (Don't look at ME - I'm not untying some homely redneck's tongue for him - the bastard might want to kiss me for helping him!)
4chan threw the vote (Score:3, Insightful)
No other way.
Brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
Government actually uses the internet for something potentially beneficial, and people troll it. I'm surprised there isn't anything related to lazers, mudkips, or Pedobear on there.
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
How will you know? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well what the hell did you expect? The site is little more than theater
It is because people like you are making it one.
What if it's real? Why try to kill something that might actually help before it has a chance to show if it's theater or not?
Why is it so hard to believe that a group being voted in on a wave of people finding the government unreasonable, might in fact want to git rid of some of the more egregious laws that have sprung up? It seems pretty obvious if you get rid of very unpopular laws you (and your group) are going to win more elections. So the thought that it's theater did not occur to me, if for no other reason than politician self-interest - and do you really want to bet against THAT?
Re:How will you know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being theater is not mutually exclusive to being taken seriously. Just because they couldn't really care less, doesn't mean they are somehow above throwing the people a meaningless and symbolic bone to appease them. Never forget: good theater keeps the lights on and the players employed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because political parties are not even doing the things they promised *before* the elections. Should't they at least *try* to implement their political portfolios before they start pondering what their next move should be?
This was in the LibDem "portfolio" -- their manifesto promised "we will introduce a Freedom Bill to restore the civil liberties that are so precious to the British character", and this is a step towards that. I think we need to take your "political parties are not even doing the things they promised *before* the elections" with a pinch of salt, given that you've just shown that you don't actually know what they promised.
Re: (Score:2)
And, as always, grammar nazism has its place [kentlaw.edu]. In choosing "that" rather than "which", the writer has not meant:
i.e. the classical liberty of freedom of expression (deployed as speech, assembly, photography etc., all coming under the same principle); instead quite specifically aiming to:
This has further degenerated to:
Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling. Freedom of speech and assembly are specifically addressed, and the problems with photography are coming about because of abuse of anti-terrorist legislation which is also specifically addressed. How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there. Grammar Nazis get it wrong a
Re: (Score:2)
Which proves that you haven't actually read the manifesto and are just trolling.
You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means. In fact, by analysing the language I've provided support for your argument - the intention of the LDs was to find out what the British find important rather than to merely assert "civil liberties are important" - but you may be so blinkered by support for the Party that you're not even paying attention.
How much of that they can actually get past the Conservatives is questionable (although quite a bit of that was in the Conservative manifesto too) but all the things you say are not there actually are there.
I didn't say something was "not there". I said that the language implies that a selection is going to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
You pasted a quote from the manifesto. I discussed what the language of the quote actually means.
Except that had you already read the manifesto at the time you made your comments you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant: although a grammar-Nazi reading could find your interpretation in there the remainder of the text plainly contradicted that reading. And even Fowler (2nd edition), while recognising that your reading of the which/that difference is the better one, acknowledges that using the terms the other way around isn't necessarily an error.
As for what we actually get
Re: (Score:2)
you would have known that that was not what the language actually meant
Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.
a lot of people seem to be forgetting that the LibDems did not win the election and we don't have a LibDem government
The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone. The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing. The only possible advantage of this coalition is a tempering of more extreme Tories who would otherwise destabilise t
Re: (Score:2)
Yet the LD coalition government has done precisely that. Perhaps you should be more careful when reading manifestos in order to see what principles the Party is more willing to give up.
Strangely, none of the manifestos included that.
The Lib Dems were not forced into forming a coalition with anyone.
Indeed. Had they not, we would almost certainly have a Conservative government now, with no tempering of the more extreme Conservative policies. It looks to me as if they did the right thing there, but maybe you wanted to see those more extreme Conservative policies in force?
The Lib Dems had the opportunity to try much harder to require various policies as a condition of coalition, yet they required almost nothing.
Really? How do you know they didn't try as had as they could? They were in a weak position because they and the Conservatives both knew that only the Conservatives could afford to run anot
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but whatever government won the election was going to have an extremely tough time staying in power at the next one; the measures necessary to cut our country's deficit are unlikely to win many votes.
Re:How will you know? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I could give you mounds of evidence, but here's what stands out:
Clegg, the overt organiser of this circus, has sold out his Party to a power shak^Hring agreement, abandoning pretty much every core platform on which they established their vote. More insidiously, he's accepting arrangements which make it look like the LDs are pushing for their manifesto when in fact they're doing precisely the opposite. For example, his Party has steadfastly put voting reform to Proportional Representation at the top of the political agenda for decades, but now he is proposing the Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo.
The LDs have always been the "Party who cares"[tm], i.e. proposes more than just slight tweaks, and they've always been laughed at because, "They'd never really do that and can only say that because they'll never get into power." Well, now they do have a certain degree of power. And they're doing none of what they said. Instead, as just illustrated, their method will be to listen, propose a "compromise" which no-one wants at all, then wait until it's not imposed and nothing changes at all. The exceptions will be where laws were already going to be tweaked, in which case this site will be used as an excuse (digital economy, personal welfare).
tl;dr We are living in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There is neither the framework, education, means nor (most importantly) interest to listen directly to the people. Even referendums are barely an exception as they're worded precisely by the government and (hi, EU!) sometimes just repeated until the population is worn down and the right answer is obtained.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative Voting method - a "compromise" system even less Proportional than FPTP
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Explanation needed, perhaps, but not "citation".
Try starting here [telegraph.co.uk]. Don't forget to follow the link giving the detail of LD Roy Jenkins' (RIP!) opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... my understanding was that the proportionality (fairness) of a voting system was not a matter of opinion, but rather a fairly well-defined area of mathematics, and so an assertion that AV was less fair than (say) STV or FPTP could be backed up some formulae and numbers.
I'm not saying you're wrong - just that the finality with which you stated it made me want a solid, indisputable citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I overlooking something is the only argument against AV in that article a complaint that people are stupid enough to for Labour?
Re: (Score:2)
"which will inevitably be voted against in any referendum, ensuring the status quo."
Why are you so sure of that?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not, by any means, Hawking or Einstein, but I'm not Larry the Cable Guy either (I fall somewhere toward the middle of the bell curve); no wonder it almost got banned.
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)
So did I the first time I heard it. I knew there was a trick since the person had a giant idiot grin on his face while he cited the number of fatalities caused buy it.
This is one of those tricks that idiots hear and like to repeat because it make them think they are looking clever. Have you ever know someone who memorized the answers to one or two incredibility difficult equations and kept spouting it out? My favorite are people who run their emails through a thesaurus so they can use bigger words even when they do not know what those new words mean.
I think that we can all agree that we should work together.
becomes
I deliberate that we container all enunciate that we should vocation simultaneously.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that's how they talked in China, and some of the rest of Asia. Seriously - have you read some of their maintenance manuals, owner's manuals, or assembly instructions? If you get one, just study the pictures. The printed instructions will just make your head hurt!
Re: (Score:2)
Classic line from my Chinese-made SKS manual:
"Do not let your SKS become tainted with defilement or sunburnt."
Re: (Score:2)
MC^2 FTW!
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Informative)
I suspect that nobody is really that bothered by laws requiring those under 16 to practice with the longbow or cabs to carry bails of hay. I also seriously doubt that many people even know that many laws, let alone which ones are absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that nobody is really that bothered by laws requiring those under 16 to practice with the longbow or cabs to carry bails of hay.
Generally, these stories are apocryphal, and were either never true or long ago repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Tiller's Rule correction: Units of hay are bales; bails appear on fishing reels, as handles on buckets, and in courtrooms (as in let out on bail).
We now join our regularly-scheduled program [that is] already in progress.
Newsbiscuit, anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
Boundary> http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2010/07/05/nick-clegg-to-repeal-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ [newsbiscuit.com]
The really clever bit being that Professor Brian Cox [wikipedia.org] really is a top-ranking physics professor, who was indeed the keyboardist for the band D:Ream who did have a UK number one hit "Things can only get better [wikipedia.org]" that was used as the election theme tune for the previous government. Which puts the satire way above The Onion. You'd have thought that a CERN scientist wouldn't have penned such an inaccurate song, although "Things will get more and more random" probably wouldn't have achieved the same chart success.
Re:Newsbiscuit, anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
You'd have thought that a CERN scientist wouldn't have penned such an inaccurate song, although "Things will get more and more random" probably wouldn't have achieved the same chart success.
That depends on your stance on randomness. He's obviously in favour of it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some people in Britain have worked out how to access websites hosted outside of the UK, so it's entirely possible, however unlikely, that they were inspired by an Onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/christian-right-lobbies-to-overturn-second-law-of,281/ [theonion.com]
Reminds me of my favorite April Fools (Score:5, Funny)
I remember a news article that circulated around the communications company where I worked, on some April 1st, saying that Shannon's Law had been repealed, and the company was ready to release a new product offering high speed Internet access over HF on a 2.8 kHz channel. So, I'd vote for Shannon's Law to be repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
they really tried, and almost succeeded, but...
"Tory" government!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Tory" government!? (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, the Libs think that too. Aren't they just adorable?
Re: (Score:2)
right.. go on.. one small step astray and off to another election..
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, they'll spit their dummies and force an election the instant the ink is dry on any new voting system that gives them even a sniff of real power, which is why the Cons will never let them have one.
And they can't throw their toys out of the pram over the issue, because until they have a new system, they'll always be a minority party, and so they have to walk the talk about how it's possible for them to be part of a working coalition government. If they bring down the government under the current
Round PI off to 3.00 for convenience (Score:4, Funny)
Repealing the Second Law (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually thought about this once, not that I have any illusions about being able to do it; it was just a Gedankenexperiment. My conclusion was that if the Second Law was eliminated, the odds are good that somewhere in the universe some process would enter a feedback loop, producing ever more energy at an ever accelerating rate, and the first we'd know about it would be when the shock wave washed over us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light.
The universe as it stands may be a raw deal, but most imaginable tweaks to the laws of physics make it even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. Entropy provides the damping necessary to maintain a stable system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Winston Churchill rule: This is the worse universe, except for all others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well actually, the British Empire is no more, so the effects of UK legislation would be limited to it's borders.
I'm pretty sure that biological processes require 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so life in the UK would cease, but all of UK neighbours would benefit from the energy leakage of from (possibly) the only non-singularity free of the second law.
Re: (Score:2)
Repealing the second law of thermodynamics doesn't repeal conservation of energy. If we can, I'd say why not - with the law intact you can't live forever.
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
It's not a Tory government, it's a coalition government.
Another one: Repeal the British North America Act (Score:3, Funny)
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-the-british-north-america-act-1867
Just trolls (Score:5, Informative)
It's a joke, amazed that you guys think these submissions are from idiots that believe this is possible. It's a British site, we enjoy taking the piss out of government crap.
Re:Just trolls (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. We don't believe for a minute they're going to repeal any laws worth repealing so let's just mock them.
For more examples see the petitions site: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ [number10.gov.uk]
what about... (Score:4, Funny)
...rule 34?
is it a law?
How is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean really, it's not even tagged "Funny". Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.
Same goes for the previous "story", whose title is not just grossly misleading, but plain wrong. Curiously, these two stories have the same editor. And yes, I'm willing to risk my karma to point this out.
Re: (Score:2)
That's cute. My own interpretation would be: attempt to grab a few headlines and sound like we're listening while continuing to do what we would have done anyway. We've had this kind of shit for 13 years (No 10 petitions anyone?) and if the new government seriously thinks people are going to fall for it just because it's a differen
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone ever lost karma for pointing out that kdawson is a bit of an idiot?
Reduce disorder by repealing third law... (Score:2)
The most worrying thing ... (Score:2)
The most worrying thing is that I wouldn't put it past the government to pass a law repealing the third law of thermodynamics!
I was quite impressed with the Monster Raving Loony party's campaign this year. Introduction of a 99p coin to save on change was genius, but this definitely tops it.
Tory government? (Score:2)
Is it that hard yanks to get your head around the idea of a coalition government? For two parties to work together?
The new UK government is a coalition between the Tories and Liberals. And they should rule the country for the next 5 months... This has been extended from the original estimate of 5 weeks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, if Gravity were gone, that wouldn't happen, because the sun couldn't pull me either.
What the hell would happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Once. I mentioned to my Dad how neat the centrifugal force was. Then he pushed me off.
Re: (Score:2)
Once. I mentioned to my Dad how neat the centripetal force was. Then he pulled me off.
There, fixed that for you ... and will you call the social services or should I?
Re: (Score:2)
w
h
o
o
o
s
h
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just might have given an answer to a completely sarcastic question. And maybe made me realize why the law of gravity might exist in the first place...not sure, beer by this point h
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth would explode, since nothing would counteract its internal pressure anymore. So would Sun, Moon, and any other body kept together by gravity. Earth's explosion would likely kill you, but if it by some miracle failed to do so, the lack of breathable air - since that too is lost as soon as gravity fails - would, and then the expanding shockwave from Sun's explosion would vaporize your bloated remains, assuming that the increased radiation due to its core shining through dispersing external parts wou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.
Re:Perfect laws? (Score:4, Funny)
The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London.
I found another online survey the results of which reflects similar sentiments.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG. I just happened to catch that episode of Monty Python over the recent US Independence Day holiday while flipping through the channels. I can only take 5 minute doses of MP, so the odds of me catching that very scene are 'inconceivable!'.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we need better government at the federal level (to put in in American terms), and the only way we will get that is by getting better constitutional arrangements, which will only happen if the EU actually gets a proper constitution - but that will reduce the power of state governments even further.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.
Well, that's what the insular British press says. Funny thing is, the rest of the EU tends not to have the really nasty laws. You'd think that they would if Brussels were imposing them on the whole EU, wouldn't you?
Re:Perfect laws? (Score:4, Informative)
The serious favourite for repeal on that site is the law against cannabis. Perfectly reasonable law to repeal. Plenty of good reasons for doing so. But there's no change the government will do so. They aren't really interested in hearing what the public wants. They just want it to appear that they are listening.
Hence why the public choose to ridicule the whole thing by voting for the repeal of various laws of physics.
Re:Greens (Score:5, Informative)
And they that sarcasm doesn't travel well.
In case it wasn't entirely obvious, these are jokes. The whole process is a farce, so people are making jokes. I know, I know, I shouldn't have to say.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why this site is failing. There's no duplication checks, and each request is specific. I'd have thought a better way is to be able to submit a request, and have others submit 'parts' to that act, which visitors can agree on a one-by-one basis. Still make it open, but better moderated. Now where do I know a decent moderation system?