Posts by Paul Rogers 20 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jan 2008
Oh do tell how this is as a result of scaremongering and not what is visible with my own eyes and audible with my own ears? In case you hadn't noticed, this is a technology rag and there's a fair chance that those reading the articles are technically minded, might even work in the internet industry (as I do), so I have a pretty good grasp of what constitutes danger to my children without someone "scaring" me.
"Blissful ignorance" was all well and good 20 years ago, but not so now I'm afraid. The internet (and the world in general these days) is a dangerous place for children for all manner of reasons and it's the parents who are ignorant (or just don't care enough) who will end up suffering the consequences.
Not even ten years ago were children regularly and reliably able to communicate with each other outside of school or with other children further than half a mile down the road and, even then, not "privately". Communication isn't a bad thing, but it HAS to be monitored. The parents who don't monitor what their children are doing on their phones/ipods and on the internet are creating a huge problem for those parents who do actually give a toss. Questions I have to field from my 13 year old pretty regularly are "Why can't I have a phone? ALL my friends have phones", "Why do you have to monitor and restrict my internet usage? NONE of my friends are restricted". I appreciate this is most likely the exaggeration of 13 year old desperately trying to shake off the shackles and deeming the whole thing terribly unfair, but I reckon there's still some truth in what he says.
"In 2011, 37 per cent of parents admitted checking out their children's communications (for their own good, of course)", I sense a hint of saracasm and the implication here is that these parents aren't doing it for their children's own good? If that's what you're saying then you're an imbecile
"All we are need to keep operations eagle claw to run is £10,000 (TEN THOUSAND BRITISH POUNDS) which we hope you will give us this aid. In return we will fund your bank account with £1,000,000 (ONE MILLION BRITISH POUNDS). Thanks you for your help in this delicate matter, may Allah bless your children
Mrs Farida Waziri"
I'm betting there'll be no WoW l33t Gold spamming by knights of the randomly charactered names. I wonder if the robot chickens will make an appearance?
I can see it now, 2 hours of our heroes following a robot chicken, beating to death any beasty/mob that comes along only to be given quest 2 in a 10 quest chain at the end of it... which will lead rather nicely into WoW 2: The quest for the robot chicken continues
If you're a scrote and government legalises drugs, where do you get your drugs? The shop. How do you pay for your drugs? You mug old ladies, because THAT'S ALL THEY KNOW.
What the hell would change? A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. At least with drugs illegal, I've a fair chance of getting my kids through adolecence and becoming decent strongly moralled human beings without them partaking in such a dangerous and anti-social past time.
If it's everywhere and there's no resistence what really is to stop them? The main issue is the addictiveness of these drugs, if they're legal then they'll be easier to get hold of and mine and your kids will have a much greater chance of getting involved, hooked and ultimately end up screwing up their lives and all because some idiot takes offence at the general population despising them funding all manner of other criminal activities. If there was no demand there'd be no supply. It's the numpties who create the demand that we should be working on, not trying to drum manufacturers and dealers out of business.
I think you've just answered your own question. Gambling truly is a mugs game. Casinos, bookies, game machines have the rules hopelessly stacked in their favour, so if there's a gambler out there who honestly believes they can beat the casino/dealer consistently, then I'll eat my hat.
Just say no kids (to gambling) if you want to keep your shirt
Is more likely connected to the raising of the legal age for smoking in general. If you smoke from an early age, I would say you're more likely to smoke cannabis, if offered, than someone who doesn't smoke at all. Once you've crossed that moral white line in the sand (so to speak), one drug is the same as any other and you're not going to think twice about doing other recreationals such as cocaine, speed etc which could then lead to Heroine if you've got a particularly addicitive personality and dependency issues.
The answer is to ban smoking completely. Kids will find it more difficult to take it up and won't feel tempted to move onto "training drugs" like cannabis. The next generation will benefit the most, this generation is f*cked.
All in my humble opinion of course
Do they not have any idea how the judicial process works? Don't they realise that by bombarding everyone with hate campaigns, they are prejudicing the view of any jurors unfortunate enough to end up on this case and are jeopardising the process of a fair trial (as everyone is entitled to no matter what the offence) ?
Are they so stupid or do they just not get it? I got a text message with the names of the mother and boyfriend and I contemplated responding with vitriol of my own, but I decided not to fan their flames any further.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
