20 posts • joined 8 Feb 2008
I'll try again
I'm sure Frodo and Bilbo's birthday is the 22nd of September not the 14th
I'm fine with this?
Well actually no I'm not. Tossers.
A simple 'Yes' would have been far less patronising.
The problem with Hobsons choice is some people will take the 'No thanks' option.
Personally, I've just disabled cookies (I hadn't previously).
eh, does this 'analysis' have a point?
Jeez, you can't win can you?
So the present Coalition set out to put right some of the worst excesses of our past 'Masters' and still end up getting a slagging in 'El Reg' ~ your sub even managed to get in the obligatory reference to the 'Daily Mail'. (Not that I'm a reader by the way).
Some people will never be happy.
Confused Uncle Sid.
smoke and mirrors
Hmmm... lets see?
They measure the time it takes to render a web page to lets say for arguments sake 1 millisecond, but, and its a big but (fnnarr), Firefox takes 3 milliseconds. so they're three times as fast.
...well yeah, but the page takes 10 seconds to download, so IE 8 serves it a teensy-weensy bit quicker then Firefox ! Gosh, I'm sure I'll notice that over a session.
Wow Microsoft, some very clever programming there! ~ or perhaps as Rob points out above, you've just bypasssed any sanity checks (purely in the name of research of course).
When will M$ realise that what we want is not, necessarily, fast software, or bloated eye candy? just honest reliable software with, perhaps, the option to turn off some of the more commercial ly minded features.
I know you want to me to sell my soul Mr Balmer, but I'll only do it if the price is right.
>...but if you're going to call it sick, you should offer some evidence that it's harmful or otherwise "bad".
Lots of people hold lots of different viewpoints without them ever being asked to justify it through evidence, I could turn the table and instead say "If you don't think its harmful then prove it", However that would be pointless.
I'm calling the desire to view these pictures as 'sick' because that is the viewpoint I hold, I realise that viewpoint is different to others, but does that make it less valid?
> If two adults get off on having their genitals bitten or want to stab each other with spikes prior to sex, why would it be wrong if I wanted to watch?
I can't answer that for you, I'm not moralizing on what others wish to get up to in their own lives, the subject is the possession of pictures of "Necrophilia, Bestiality etc..."
As I've stated, I have no issue with what you get up to in your private life. I've simply pointed out that wishing to view 'Extreme' porn is not and never will be 'normal' behavior, Most people would be revolted by such pictures, so to actively seek these pictures out, is not displaying normality.
I believe thats 'sick', you consider my view as arrogant, I don't. If others wish to insult me for that, then that displays their own intolerance, not mine.
I'm just using a word that the vast majority of the population would use when confronted by pictures of "Necrophilia, bestiality, ... etc... etc... etc...". My original question was "Why do you think that arrogant?", as in "why do you think that I'm assuming a viewpoint that could be considered superior?", when I don't feel I am? I'm simply making the same statement most people would in the same situation.
Now, if you take exception to the use of that word, doesn't that display a teensy weensy bit of an inability to allow others their opinion? perhaps a smidgen of intolerance? perhaps you feel you're being personally attacked, so therefore retaliate at anyone who doesn't agree with you, when plainly the word wasn't aimed at you personally. There's a word for that too.
I am technically literate, I take all the precautions I can to ensure that I and my family can surf the internet without being subjected to these pictures. however, even with all these precautions, I still find myself inadvertently, from time to time, coming across them.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people (yes, including children) who do not understand the danger of clicking a harmless looking link (or even one designed for the curious), and being subjected to a barrage of 'Extreme' porn. They normally do not have the technical savvy to make it stop. I know, I have had to wipe this crap off a lot of computers in my time.
(you'll probably now take exception to me calling it 'crap' ~ It is stuff that I don't want, to be flushed away by the exersizing of the delete key i.e. 'crap')
These pictures are often linked in the press to the behavior of frankly ill, (or 'sick'), people who commit sex crimes, I have no idea of the validity of that assumption, but it matters little, since in the eyes of the general public that link has been established.
If the sex industry had really got their act together and ensured that only those wishing to view these pictures could do so in the privacy of their own homes, instead of thinking that they'd make more money by 'advertising', The lawmakers would not have stepped in and come up with an admittedly too broad-ranging act.
The majority of internet users are not surfing for 'Extreme' porn (despite Michaels belief ~ you're really 'not' in the majority son), The majority want to be able to use the internet, without having to install lots of programs to make their surfing 'safer'.
So, We have the 'rights' of a small minority of the population, as opposed to the 'rights' of a majority of the population, now where do you think the politicians will look for the votes?
Don't blame the Politicians or the general public, blame the people who thought the likes of "Goatse" was funny.
No, I'm not saying people who view this stuff are 'inferior' I would never hold that view. But I don't equate it with normal behavior. Surely normal behavior is behavior that is carried out by the majority of the population. The majority of the population don't actively seek out 'Extreme' porn therefore, that activity is not 'normal' . If you deviate from the norm, you are exhibiting deviant behavior.
Arrogant is the wrong word to use. Intolerant would be a better one.
If a snail was sexually abused and physically violated then had its picture taken before consumption, then yes I would be happy for the outlawing of eating snails, since it is'nt, I have no opinion on the subject.
Err... thats just sophistry
I'm not demanding you you 'prove' anything, all I asked is that you justify why you thought my points were arrogant? unfortunately, instead of coming up with a justification to your use of those words, you decide to use the old old "show ME the proof" reasoning.
Do you really hold the view that looking at pictures of Necrophilia, or bestiality or other deviation (as outlined in the act), is normal behavior? Do you really believe that a picture of somebodys anus being torn apart could be considered as something that doesn't cause harm to others?
You make the assumption (all to often) that I am arrogant, and now apparently also ignorant, simply because I don't hold the views you do. Well there's a refreshingly liberal stance.
So your civil rights and your liberties are affected by this law, well son, theres a really simple answer to that. At the risk of repeating myself, oh again, don't download Extreme porn.
I really don't care what you or others get up to in the privacy of their own homes, however the internet isn't just there for YOUR benefit, others, including children, use it, and if people who upload (or download) 'Extreme' pornography, are to stupid to realise that, then Governments will act to curb these abuses, so through their own selfish stupidity these people deserve these laws to make them conform.
" @Sid - If you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't be so arrogant (as the Government has been) to assume that *your* personal views of what may or may not be "sick" should govern what everyone else is allowed to see or download. I'm sure there are some who would consider gay porn to be "sick", do you want to align yourself with them? (Oh, hang on, you advise the predominantly male readership of El Reg to "get a girlfriend"...)"
So fine, get a boyfriend ~ I honestly don't care, since I'm not in the slightest bit homophobic. Your insinuation is a best mischevious, at worst the same illiberal narrow minded assumption you accuse me of.
Why should it be 'arrogant' to believe that anyone who wants to view 'Extreme' porn as being sick?
Who ~ apart from a deviant ~ would find 'pictures' that depict "certain specific imagery, including necrophilia, bestiality, activity depicting serious harm to breast, anus or genitals or life-threatening activity" a normal situation? Where's the arrogance in that view?
This Government has introduced a lot of laws that I totally disagree with, in part including this one, however, as broad sweeping as it is, it will not affect perhaps 95%* of the population, (including hetrosexuals and gays). If it affects you there are a couple of things you can do, either cut and paste the above article and keep it handy, or perhaps just don't download extreme porn.
Uncle Sid (Who doesn't have a business affected by this law, and therefore doesn't feel the urge to attack anyone who disagrees with him )
*A statistic made up on the spot.
A Howto for the seedy
This is all very good advice, but wouldn't it be better just not to down load sick images from malware infested porn sites in the first place?
Or perhaps get a girlfriend ~ or a life?
Do people really get their kicks from a bunch of pixels?
"Unfortunately end users tend to freak out when you disable autoplay"
Err...Thats their problem surely, not yours?
Autoplay is not, and never has been a good feature, it has always something that any Sysop or Sysadmin or whatever they call themselves nowadays, should immediately disable, simply because not to do so causes too many problems.
It takes about three mouse clicks to get around autoplay, if your users are to stupid to manage that, then I suggest locking the boxes down so tight they squeak when used.
You must work for an advertising agency or local government? since they seem to be the only employers of computer illiterates on this particular scale nowadays.
Do us all a favour and please educate these morons that running programs without explicitly requesting it , is actually a really (read, career ending) bad idea.
You know it makes sense
Yours, Uncle Sid.
...there's no 'I' in team (but there is a 'me')
Q - Whats the definition of an honest Microsoft executive?
A - An oxymoron
As someone who's just bought a shiny new laptop with Vista installed and is having to wait a week for a (paid for) copy of XP so I can get rid of this cr*p, the idea of any MS executive actually understanding 'why' people get upset over their false promises is akin to why Maggie used to wonder why miners were striking?
If anyone hasn't seen that vomit inducing viral of MS employees singing Vistas' praises I suggest they do so at the first opportunity. Not only does it strengthen the view that MS is incapable of understanding 'real' users, it also confirms that MS now employ followers rather than leaders.
A machine says 'Vista Capable' when it's not, it's 'Cut down Vista Capable' because, lets face it, you can probably install it on a a 486 with 256k of memory should you suddenly lose your facilities as long as there is a badge on the front saying so. But Joe User, unaware of the differences, should not be punished for his lack of knowledge, its not Joe users fault, it's the slimy greasy MS executives for selling a product 'not fit for use'.
Please people don't ever defend this obsfucation by blaming the user. Ignorance is no defence, I'll admit, but it doesn't follow that the opposite should hold.
People bought 'Vista capable' machines because of promises made that were simply untrue. If MS employ people who lie, they should be forced through the application of laws, to receive a just punishment.
I'm afraid my adventures in Concurrent Processors stopped at the Transputer and Occam, something I never got the hang of, because of my habit of using TAB instead of spaces. Boy! would that confuse things :)
So your explanation was gratefully received.
Mind, I still use the command line to compile stuff, Old dog, new tricks and all that.
@Peter Gathercole and AC
Thanks for the explanation, I'd got the SMP and MMP bit, I've just never heard of Granulising Data, It left me totally baffled (as you probably guessed).
AC: You'll be pleased to know I've since googled it, and its just a posh name for creating subsets or something like that... I think? ...Possibly?
Nurse, Nurse! wheres my Spectrum?
"had to paralleize it explicitly as they moved from SMP to MPP, and change the calculations to use more granular data"
WTF are you on about? I'm sorry but twenty years in the computer industry along with a degree in computer science, and I still have no idea what you mean there? Could you re-phrase it so us mere mortals have a clue?
I wont ever use T5, and I wont ever visit the USA again. I think it will be a long time before they get over this 'fingerprinting business'.
Have you used the ferries recently? Only way to travel, in my opinion.
...Someone seeing sense. The Information commissioners office using the Data Protection Act to protect people from unnecessary collection of unnecessary data. Hard to believe.
It doesn't have to be given away
I don't see a problem with a charge for Geodata, the problem is the very high cost and the restrictions the OS place on what you can do with it. It costs money to collect this data (partly paid for by the taxpayer), and they should ensure that the costs are re-couped.
But they should also ensure that if us taxpayers are paying for this then we should be allowed to use our data without draconian restrictions, and at a fair price.
The OS is a monopoly, Thats not right.
Angel Bill cos he'd give it away free... :)
Some people are astonishing, they don't read the comments before whinging about everybody whinging :)
I haven't read anything about anyone objecting to paying for road repairs, street lighting, NHS etc...
But is it whinging, when they see money spent on unnecessary War? or the Million or so pounds spent on the Super Casino, thats now wasted? or all the money being spent on unnecessary ID Cards etc...?
I think the crux of this story is what has already been mentioned, that the Government are now prepared to pay criminals a lot of money to get information, this is a bad precedent, where will this end? Paying Kids to grass their parents up?
...someone who thinks ID Cards are a 'good idea' but posts anonymously.