Posts by ImaGnuber300 posts • joined Monday 14th January 2008 16:30 GMT
Bye bye Britain. You were once a great nation.
"Bets are on for the first one of next week, who is it going to be?"
Hmm... The Reg could start a little game... used Reg coffee cup or something to the one who gets the next company right... employees of said company not eligible for obvious reasons.
Identity of winner to be kept on a CD which will then be 'lost'. Winner can claim secondary prize (tinfoil hat, soggy foot?) if CD turns up on eBay.
googling "necrophiliac foot fetish canada" produced 477,000 hits. Didn't want to look any further. Don't know if I should be more worried about commentors who get into proper methods of disposing of bodies - wire mesh etc. Please advise.
Schrödinger's snail?
Yes, it is a stretch. My coat is/isn't...
"Mine's the one with 'graduated from Cambridge with a law degree, spent 7 years trespassing and never got arrested' written on the back."
Stay in England. You could get hurt (and charged and tried) if you do it here. Practical experience speaking.
Yeah I'm a crazy Norte Americano
Microsoft might want to pay attention to the fact that China likes executions as a problem solver. Wonder if capitalist running dog Billy is planning to go to the Olympics?
What an amazing country - everything is so wonderful that the gov can turn its attention to something like this. I think I'll have to move there (rotfl). A safe bet is that there will soon be an ever-increasing charge by weight for removal.
I guess you can also look forward to chipped toilets and urinals? Mandatory in pubs and able to read the chips in your ID cards so beer drinkers can be taxed twice (coming and going).
Amazing.
...Daniel Day Lewis when you need him?
Someone had to say it.
Didn't they?
Firing is probably appropriate as I expect the documents shouldn't have been removed from the office in the first place - but firing probably wouldn't really have much effect as a warning as few people think they would ever do something so stupid as leaving the documents on a train.
Microsoft has put out dodgy, insecure systems (so I hear) for many years and in so doing has exposed tens (hundreds?) of millions of Americans to the activities of countless n'er-do-wells so it is a bit precious of them to claim any concern for America's well-being at this point.
A significant proportion of the Federal prison system population is made up of inmates from 'low income' backgrounds so I expect he'll be getting more than a few lessons in 'Interpersonal Relations' over the next few years.
No sympathy whatsoever.
"I don't want to sound flip about this, but if you want to make omelettes, you have to break some eggs."
Translation: We don't give a shit. No, really, we don't.
"But freedom of choice between members of a limited selection of profit-maximising crap is better than no choice at all, isn't it."
Well, no. Crap is crap... and crap is what you generally end up with, in my experience, when you have a limited number of suppliers who have agreed to a set of rules designed to suit themselves. Inevitably these rules, characterised as being for the consumer's benefit, always seem to increase the cost to the consumer while offering less.
My ISP is a small independent providing excellent service at a better price than the big guys* - but it could be forced to increase its prices (or be squeezed out) by the big guys it buys bandwidth from if they get the rules they want.
*Strange that my ISP buys bandwidth and resells it for less than the rate charged by the big guy to its own customers - and my ISP provides better technical support and a cap 10 (or more) times higher, depending on the package, than that offered by the big guy for similar rates.
"I also fail to see what is wrong with profit-maximising"
Nothing - when it is combined with quality. Unfortunately profit-maximising seems to have become a euphemism for reducing quality/service to increase profits.
"feral... kangaroos, camels and emus"
Apologies to Aussies but that really did make my day.
"Net neutrality forbids consumer choice. The consumer can't say 'Please prioritize.'"
I feel myself tense up whenever some corporate yob claims to be promoting freedom of choice - as it usually turns out to mean nothing more than 'you are free to choose from whatever limited selection of profit-maximising crap we choose to offer.'
Maybe I'm just jaded. Maybe it's a good thing I've got plans for the weekend.
So higher number of non-believers among the highly intelligent so that would indicate that most of the nasty weapons, man-made carcinogenic chemicals blah-blah-blah are produced by those who don't believe in (any) God?
Yikes! Not nice people.
(non-believer here)
If the University of Ulster has a theological department you might want to stay away from the cafeteria for a while.
Sounds brilliant - make it more expensive to work there - smaller businesses gradually begin to avoid it - then larger - smaller service businesses (cafes, restaurants etc) fail - the entire area becomes undesirable - and in twenty years (or less) you will be paying a huge bill in an effort to 'revitalise' the core.
But, hey, you cut down on the traffic.
Can I be the first to claim the 'undiagnosed glitch' is a fake a la "Besuited cubicle monkey trashes office" comments section (and same for countless other items)?
Where is the 'It's a Fake' headquarters? Would I just get a fake address?
"And some of these big expensive R&D projects fail, just as oil companies sometimes spend a lot of money drilling a dry well. But if an oil company cut back its drilling programme because of a run of dry wells, it would go out of business once the existing ones were pumped dry."
Wonderful analogy!
We've screwed ourselves with pork barrel politics and bureaucratic infighting.... HELP!
The assumption is that what is odd ( = 'unacceptable' for some people) today will be regarded in the same way tomorrow.
Odd how inflexible and shortsighted some people can be.
The other point is that, as the parents indicated, they will continue to call their daughter Elvis no matter what the 'official' requirement may be - thus the Swedish gov could minutely increase the gap between the official view and lives as actually lived and thus could, minutely, increase the level of disrespect and disregard for government.
Doesn't 'Swede' = Turnip in Britain?
...is that legitimate* research might be constrained by social issues such as, as is indicated by the comments re this case, the fear of even a possibility of a privacy breach.
*'legitimate' does not mean or require that it must be seen to be useful by all and sundry.
Let every country pass a law barring their spy agencies from spying on their own citizens. Now how do they keep an eye on their own people? Simple, Tex calls Cyril and suggests that he might want to check out so-and-so or network-such-and-such and you're done. Cyril, being a good sport, will let Tex know if anything of interest pops up. It's so good to have allies, isn't it?
The head of each country's agencies can then take great umbrage at any suggestion that they would spy on the 'citizens of this great land'.
Do you really think that you can have any hope of maintaining any privacy on the net or anywhere else? Do you really believe that?
There is a way around any restriction you might think you can put in place (if it isn't just secretly ignored).
Paranoia or reality?
The Reg staff should lead the way - everyone get on a bike (one bike each, that is) and do a pub crawl to show how much fun environmentally friendly gas-free cycling can be. The last man or woman capable of 50 metres in a straight line followed by a u-turn and 50 metres back is the eco-warrior of the year.
Pictures please. Video preferred but leggo will do.
Must have been a long day - read the subtitle as "General-ware to direct human prawns on future battlefields."
Bork bork bork bork bork bork bork bork.
Bork!!!!
"Isn't 'first they came for the...' implicitly covered by Godwin's Law?"
That had been my feeling until I realised that it seemed to be used to get past the Godwin filter.
If there was going to be a Gnuber's Law* perhaps it could be used to call anyone on their attempt to slip past Godwin's Law?
*ego-cringe - any other name would do as well.
Also, I'd hate to see the original text trivialised through overuse by the tin-foil hatted anti-gov brigade.
Considering the general level of paranoia displayed in the Reg comments sections I'm surprised no one has accused the extreme animal rights activists of being in the pay of some evil government department as provocateurs whose purpose is to gain support for repressive laws. C'mon folks, you're falling down on the job here.
And could someone please formulate some law re the increasing use of the 'first they came for the...' schtick?
Dog (or pet) chipping is used by many responsible owners as an aid to recovering their pet in the event that it wanders off, gets lost while travelling etc. and proof of ownership in theft cases.
It is a responsible thing to do - even the most conscientious owner (and their pet) may be the victim of circumstance.
Making it mandatory might just be a good thing. Doesn't feed the appetite for paranoia, I know, but there you have it.
"It is alleged that managers at Sequani were followed home and verbally abused outside their homes."
"There is a very fine line between legitimate political protest, and intimidation."
Where is the fine line here? Protesters following someone to their target's home is intimidation pure and simple. The protestors are saying "We'll harrass you AND your family if you don't do what we want you to do."
"the photographs would be stored and used only by public order officers in order to prevent offences at future events."
...is not a specious argument. Photos can be issued to officers, at some future time (some demo), so that they can identify and watch (or isolate) known troublemakers in order to prevent an offence occurring during the demo.
Had to reread that as it is such a brilliant summary of expected comments.
Thanks for making me laugh.
Again.
"Andrew Wood, a media co-ordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT)"
"one question described by the court as "unobjectionable"
So we should assume his question was purely technical with no unstated but probably obvious ulterior motive - unless he was there in some capacity other than as 'a media co-ordinator for the Campaign Against Arms Trade'. Or simply failed to do his job as same.
Draw attention - get attention and a predictable response... and get a little bit of support and praise from those already so inclined. I doubt very much that any of the participants ran from the meeting weeping with shame... and he managed to get a ruling in favour of the police.
Slick.
Pah! Way back in Ye Olde Protest Days I played cat and mouse with a police photographer who wanted a photo and we both got a laugh out of it (he eventually got his photo). Both of us were 'just doing our job'. Would never have occurred to any of us to go whining to a court.
I'm sure the police are quite happy to a have a clear ruling thanks to Mr. Wood's silliness.
Next: A taser in every seat. Oops! False positive... please accept a complimentary drink.
If the airlines don't want passengers why don't they just say so instead of all this not-so-subtle hinting?
Methinks travel by rail and cruise ship is about to become much more popular. Hell, if the airlines keep going down this path travel by bicycle and canoe will have more appeal.
"I thought it was typical for the men to have much younger wife's like him being 57 and the wife being 27."
Only if he's rich.
...when there are only six people on the planet who know how things work - and they decide not to tell?
There may, in the end, be a legitimate reason for deportation however the issue here is the original investigation based on downloading a book on an approved/required reading list - and the fact that the investigation was requested by the university that approved/required the book.
What kind of stupidity is that?
Investigating someone for daring to learn in a learning environment (from a book approved as part of the course)???
Your country is in very serious trouble.
Alan Simpson, MP for Nottingham South said it best:
"If we allow this to be done in our name, in our silent collusion, we become the architects of our own totalitarianism. We live in fear of speaking openly. We live in fear of enquiring and researching openly... We live in fear of the quiet unannounced knock on the door and we live in fear of our own shallowness, in terms of the willingness to stand side-by-side with each other in order to defend the very basis of an open democracy that we claim that terrorism is a threat to."
An MP spoke up - signs of change or the last faint gasp of reason and freedom?
Wouldn't have expected to say this about a politician but - honour that man.
Actually I agree with you that it is not always pleasant to be near a smoker (I'm a smoker and try to be considerate) - it's the neurotic little creatures who react to someone far enough away that get me going - I've had it happen even when I'm just fiddling with an unlit cig.
Otherwise fully approve of banning smoking in enclosed spaces - even if it would sometimes be nice with coffee etc. ...sigh.
Also agree with "NO s*it " that air quality on planes seems to have dropped since the ban. What the hell's up with that?
"more pages loaded, which in turn equals more advertising displayed"
My first thought as well. There are quite a number of online magazines that do the same thing - offering tiny bits of the article surrounded by ads and you have to click through to next bit and on and on. When I see that I just leave the site - permanently.
"Shut up with the BS and have the balls to speak the truth"
Or offer a BS translation page.
Bork Bork
"Most of the pollution I experence is from you smokers who think it's alright to blow it around - even outside. God bless the smoking ban, and I hope it's extended to everywhere"
Are you one of those twits who can be walking down a busy city street - thus in a sea of car exhaust - and you see a smoker 10 feet away and do that little disapproving cough-cough?
Yes, cynicism is an expression of distrust of someone's motives... I was, whether correct or not, impolite. Suffice to say that we differ and probably always will... unless you come to your senses, of course :-)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some ranting and raving to do elsewhere.
"A CD sold on the market does NOT hold the artist's work. It is a reproduction of his or her work."
You might want to have a look at aesthetic/philosophical discussions which have been going on for several decades.
"What painters did in those days is even more interesting."
They often produced multiple copies, or paid others to do it (usually employees/apprentices) and got paid for each 'copy'. Printmaking is another method of multiplying the profit/making the artist's work more accessible to more people. Any moderately good history will mention these and other methods.
"So I have no objection to paying them the 90c per CD which represents their costs plus about 200% profit."
I assume you have taken into account the costs/payments due the performer and the staff and the production/manufacturing facilities etc? I'll take your word on that and should assume this is just your way of objecting to what you perceive to be 'excessive' profits? I hope this isn't the usual half-assed whining justification for theft as in 'I think they make too much money so I'll teach them a lesson'?
"Artists will once again be paid per performance. Those amongst them who are smart will distribute their works via available channels and make that 200% themselves and grow rich and fat – and good luck to them."
I somehow doubt that 'and good luck to them' was meant ironically though that would be the more accurate interpretation.
"And their descendants for the 70 years after they die will just have to live off the interest!"
Oh dear, he objects to the money someone else might receive. I wonder if you would refuse it if a significant amount came your way? Give it away to feed the less fortunate perhaps? I'm sure you would, Joe.
Object as much as you want to the terms 'thieves' and 'pirates'. Someone who steals is a thief no matter how they justify it to themselves and 'pirate' has long been an accepted term for someone who, yes, pirates recordings etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your objections seem to be to the amounts of money someone else is making - yes? Well, you don't have to pay those amounts do you? Oh wait - you can refuse to pay and still get what you want - by stealing! Wow! What a solution! Isn't there a term to describe that? Something about having your cake and... oh, what was it, Joe? Joe?
Oh and I would appreciate it if you would send me your name and address so that I can be certain of never hiring you for anything - you might object to something I do (like making more money than you think I should) and use it as a justification for stealing from me - you devilish little revolutionary, you.
The CD is a container holding someone's work (the artist's and the production company). The CD containing that work is offered for sale. You may purchase that product with money - money represents work you have done. You are exchanging your money/work/effort for the work offered in the container (CD). By offering the work in CDs the artist/production company is allowing a wider audience the opportunity to exchange effort in the same way that a live audience might exchange effort with the artist/production company - though the CD method offers it at a (usually, comparatively) reduced rate. If you don't think the effort represented by the CD/recording is worth what is being asked then don't offer a representation of your work in exchange (in other words - don't buy it).
Clicking a mouse and ripping off someone's work is not a sufficient exchange of effort.
And Note: Thinking that the artist/production company is asking too much in exchange is not sufficient justification for theft... nor is complaining that the production company is not giving enough to the artist - it doesn't matter how often you hear those excuses used.
(I suppose a download rip-off could, at a stretch, also be viewed as the equivalent to sneaking into a performance without paying. And no doubt there would probably be some people who would think they were clever for doing that too.)
"Are you suggesting that there is a difference between "hobbyists" (as being lesser?) and "professionals" (as being better?) when it comes to "artists"?"
Not at all. I am a professional and I know some 'hobbyists' who are far better than many professionals I have had the misfortune to come in contact with.
Andraž may be exceptionally good at what he does -however when someone who does not have a serious stake in the debate regarding 'payment for protected work' makes remarks those remarks are nothing more than theories unconnected to the real world. That is a mistake made by 'cute' hobbyists.
And if you are going to lecture me again, please refrain from merely stating the obvious.
Jeezus I'm in a bitchy mood today.
"it had to delete Google News links to and cached articles"
How come the anti-copyright-tards aren't jumping in here and screaming that the papers have no right to copyright and restrict distribution of their efforts?
Oh, right. It doesn't involve downloading crappy music so it doesn't affect them.
"If you build your own Ford Mondeo out of raw steel, have you 'stolen a car' from Ford? No, you haven't."
As Sarah has pointed out, Ford might have words with you.
However if you wish to ignore that then I would like to ask you you how you reproduce the music you like - do you use musical instruments, your voice, your talent? To get it closer to your Ford argument - do you build your copy out of raw sound?
When you can say that this is the way you 'copy' music (rather than just a few clicks of the mouse) then, and only then, will your argument make any meaningfull sense.
I won't hold my breath.
Forget any talk of a 'slippery slope'. Britain is already wallowing in the pool at the bottom of that slope. I'm sure all of this will come here too but until then you have my sympathy - at the moment you seem to have the most inept politicians on the planet.
Hmm... I'm reasonably good with a brush - maybe I can pay for a holiday over there by getting myself hired to paint discrete bits of cloth, leaves, or whatever on all the cherubs etc. in your nation's galleries... or would even applying for that job get me listed?
I know it's more than a bit of a cliche but you have to wonder what these "ban everything" political perverts are thinking about all the time... shudder.
