Posts by Steve Swann

Really?

"If i knew of anyone that even *wanted* to watch this stuff (knowing what it was about), i'd hand them their P45 and have them escorted out within minutes."

...and you'd be in breach of employment laws and in court faster than you could say "rewind!". You can't dismiss people for what they think, like or want. Only for gross misconduct; if they watched the film in company time on company premises for instance.

Get a grip, we don't belong to you and we are not subject to laws on thought-crime. yet.

Enough's enough!

Just HOW many peadophiles do people think are actually out there, How many so-called Predators are on the hunt? More than there are so-called terrorists? Less?

This is just yet MORE fear-mongering on behalf of those who want to keep us subdued and away from the REAL issues of state-control, corrupt politicians and partisan policies!

But, that aside, let's consider some simple things here:

To become a registered sex-offender does not require that you have actually commited a sexual assault on *anyone*, let alone a child. Urinating in public, having sex in public, public nudity, lewd conduct, engaging a prostitute... these are ALL 'crimes' that can get you put on the register (not this El Reg, I hasten to add...though I do wonder. hehe.)

Once you are on the register, you are on it for GOOD, even if convicted. If you are convicted, and you serve a term, you will still be on the register once you have 'paid you debt to society' and even if you have undergone rehabilitation courses (most of which are based on religious principles, like the AA - "Lets's give it up to Jebus!' *snort*) - you cannot ever escape this crime, it will follow you forever.

AND, those that hold this data will SELL it to people who create iPhone apps so that you can be tracked; your personal data displayed for all to see. Yet more fear-mongering and/or fuel for ill-informed vigilantes who decided that you've not been punished enough already.

eCRB checks will ensure you are NEVER employable, and you are NEVER able to view that information, challenge or change it. You are blacklisted from society itself.

And now, just to add icing to the cake, you are to be banned from the Internet.

Your isolation complete; your prison sentence may be over but you will never, ever, pay for your crime of taking a leak in dark alley one night when leaving the bar.

Wake up, society, ffs.

End Shouty Mode.

Common Sense

Ah, the refuge of those who can't form a cogent argument for their own views...

"There is no such thing as common sense. When someone says to you 'use your common sense' what they are actually saying is 'do it MY way'.. " ~ Billy Connolly.

A question... or two...

Half a ton of nickel/iron compound slamming into the surface of mars at some distant point in the past...?

Where's the crater?

How come it's just lying there on the surface when the rest of the this once-atmosphere covered world has been scoured away by the ravages of time?

@NeonTeepee

First off, it's "Write" not "Right" - sorry, but that made me grind my teeth and I had to say something...

Secondly, did you not read the rest of the comments above before posting? Clearly the "long string" model isn't going to work, due to the weight of the string or the possibility of something running into it. I doubt the CAA would be happy with the plan.

Furthermore, bursting the balloon (note the TWO L's everyone! Please!) would result in Vulture I dragging the remains of a balloon along with it; hardly aerodynamic!

And finally, before I take my pedantry, coat and go home, the story about NASA's pen and the Soviets pencil is not true; it's just an urban myth. Look it up on snopes.com.

Typical!

Usual 'old guard' response (and I don't mean just in China, either!) where those that cannot understand the advancement of human knowledge give it a derogatory label (in this case "Net Addiction") and then inflict violence upon those who practice it.

Throughout history it's the same; "We don't understand this! It scares us! ATTACK!".

Will people never learn?!

@Scrubber

Just a quick note for you (and everyone else!)...

..there is no such thing as a terrorist organisation called "Al Queda".

The phrase, Al Queda, means either "The Gentlemen", "The List" or "The Database" depending on who you get to translate it. It was coined back in the early 1990's by the CIA as a codename for their database of terrorist suspects.

Isn't it amazing then that we all live in fear of this James Bond-esque super villan organisation hidden in their secret underground cave-bases in far off lands plotting how they can attack us here in our very homes?

Aren't we glad that our border security & intelligence agencies are stopping each and every attempt on our liberty and lives? After all, there haven't been many deaths from terrorist activity in the UK for a long time! Why, there were more death from bee stings last year than deaths from terrorism in the UK in the last TEN years!

Still, we can't be too safe can we? Lets have some ID cards to help protect us from the non-existant, not attacking, not getting into the UK, imaginary Al Queda!

Rant over... I'll get me coat.... It's the one that says "Conspiracy Theory is not Insanity" on the back.

@AC 06:34

That's a ridiculous argument.

You suggest that the 'morality' (expressed as censorship, in this case) of others is none of our business and that we 'get over it' as our values are non-universal.

Would you apply the same argument to female circumcision? How about The Holocaust? What about the burning of the (american) flag? Racism? How about the ethnic cleansing that has taken place in countries such as Rwanda? Human rights abuses in Saudi? Sharia law taken to extremes in Iran?

Let's bring it right home: If *I* banned *you* from the net (due to an authority that I hold that you didn't grant me) wouldn't you rail against it? Wouldn't you hope that your friends would stand by you? Wouldn't you hope that the larger community would support you against the unfair situation I place you in?

...or do you expect everyone to just say "Meh, not my business"... ?

Those are all the morals of other nations, yet you'd not intervene? Morality is little more than an evolutionary meme, and the best ones survive by eliminating the poorer ones. We, as moral people, have no choice but to intervene on behalf of others where we feel, universally, that their rights have been restricted by comparision to ours.

The price of freedom, both ours and that of others, is eternal vigilance.

A question...

Does anyone know if the law is specific to same-sex female couples or does it extend to male couples as well?

If not, why not?

@Ms. Bee

Would it help if I were riding a bicycle at the time?

A lyric springs to mind....

I will give "oldie" points to anyone who recognises it as well....

"Dress yourself my urchin one, for I hear them on the stairs....

...because of all we've seen,

...because of all we've said,

we are the dead."

Chillingly appropriate that song is.

Longevity & Social Impact

There have been a few posts above that run along the lines of "Anti-aging can't be good because it would lead to increases in population and greater demand on natural resources." or, following a more philosophical line of "Surely death is part of life and we must accept our fate" - the old Four Score and Ten line, as it were.

Now, whilst I don't wholly disagree with those sentiments (especially as regards over population), I'd like to take the opportunity to play devils advocate for a moment (I can almost never say that phrase without a recollecting Homer Simpsons Pinball machine. heh.)

* The ideal population for earth, according to NeoCon philosophy in the US is approximately 600k - Yes, six hundred thousand, less than 1% of current levels. This figure is the 'optimal level for resource sustainability' - well, we're already WAY outside of that!

* The largest populations occur in the least wealthy nations as a rule of thumb, so I doubt that they will benefit from the emergence of a (no doubt) very, very expensive designer drug in the west. We need only to look at how the various AIDS treatments have been handled to see the effect that such a drug would have on the 'emerging world'.

* It was only a century ago that the average life-expectancy of persons living in the western industrialised nations was around HALF of the current expectation, yet we don't complain that people are living too long by those standards. The idea that life is curtailed by some 'moral marker' in the form of 'an appropriate death following a suitable life' is purely a religious construct, and not a biological one. This increase in life-span is no less natural than the idea of a drug found in soil - we've brought it about through our science; understanding diet, surgery, and far less 'natural' drugs, as well as through social evolution. I don't hear anyone saying that these are bad things (well, maybe some religious fundamentalists, but they are barely worth listening to.)

* If resources were correctly managed, and not owned by vast multi-national corporations (who stockpile and waste on incredible scales) then the population of Earth could be easily sustained. It's not that there are insufficient resources, it's that the resources are owned by a tiny fraction of the global populace.

Overall, I think we should welcome anything that enchances the length and/or quality of life for all human-kind, but it should be a cautious welcome until we truly understand the ramifications of the technology in question.

Alternate headline....

ICANN has Chief Burgher?

wait, wait.... when I stop laughing....

they 'burned him with cigarettes', but made him go outside to actually smoke one?!

Ok, back to laughing.....

@David Evans AND the rest of you... TUT!

"corrected: 'I still run into so many people with kids, even this weekend, who ask, “is that movie coming out this year?'”

No, no, no. See me after class. You're missing the use of that fine article of punctuation, the SEMI-COLON!

Corrected, it should read as follows...

"I still run into so many people with kids; even this weekend, who ask, 'is that movie coming out this year?'"

Now, write it out a hundred times.

Thank you all...

...for the valuable footprinting info. I'll be sure to visit your networks soon.

:)

*takes stage, shuffles paper at lecturn*

*Clears throat*

Ahem.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the press, free thinkers of the world, I would like to put forward a new proposal that will ensure our libertarian, open and free society remains such.

I would like to ban religious opinion on the internet.

There can be absolutely no doubt that religious opinion, moralising and dogma causes the overwhelming measure of harm in our society. From my research, and from the research of many others, all of which is freely available on the uncensored segments of the Internet, it is clear that religion, in all forms, brings nothing but harm.

It is a virus that we infect children with, causing them to believe that 'faith' and the acceptance of that faith, in an unquestioning form, is a virtue. It instills in them a hatred of those that do not share the precise same values as those of their parents and educators. It stifles freedom of expression, art, music and speech wherever such may be in discordance with its own, self-created and highly subjective principles.

It is responsible for wars, torture, persecution, racism and crime throughout both the contemporary world and the entirity of recorded history. It seeks to subjugate and control, never to free expression or explain itself. It holds itself as 'eminent domain' in its hubris, denying the right to question or counter its inexplicable 'reasoning'. It seeks to moralise and to rule where such is both inappropriate and unsolicited. It denys science and reason in favour of 'acceptance without question'.

Worse, and more over, it has become the shelter of those who purport the worst crimes against humanity; Suicide bombings, ethnic cleansing, inquisitional torture and even the sexual abuse of children have all been excused in the name, or with the power, of religion.

Unelected and unaccountable; the perpetrators and supporters of these corrupt values seek to interfere with our freedoms, our rights, every day. They want our obedience and compliance, and they are willing to kill, bribe and threaten their way to obtain that power. They will even inflict the same upon each other in the name of their unprovable gods.

People of the world, I call upon you to reject this thinking wholeheartedly, and to ignore its plaintive wails as such primitive beliefs dies. Look around at the world, and the religious conflict that plagues it; are these not the very death throes of the old beliefs that we are observing? Are they not simply doing battle to see which of their religions will be the last to expire?

I, therefore, call for a filter on the internet, opt-in rather than opt-out, that blocks all religious traffic and information as it is proveably and demonstrably harmful to mankind as a whole.

I call for an end to religion. Before we are all engulfed in its hatred.

*steps down from lecturn*

Hmmm, let me see here....

You have no right to an opinion.

If you have an opinion, you must not express it.

If you do express it, and we see it, you will be sanctioned.

We have people who will check to see if you express your opinion, so don't think you can hide it.

Once you have been sanctioned, you may not speak about the sanction.

You have no right to express your opinion about the sanction.

How many more wrongs can we find in this?

Well.....!

"The nano-structure was created in a single step by pyrolysis of ferrocene in argon at 1,000 degreees C. The created nanotube elements are dispersed in isopropanol ultrasonically and deposited on a substrate with electrical contacts applied to the ends of the nanotube."

Straight forward enough! Thanks for making that so clearly understandable!

@Chris W.

Lock and Load.

Time to get serious.

Balance.

I do love it when people yelp as popular politics hits there where it hurts; in their pocket. I just find it utterly astounding that it takes financial discomfort before anyone actually *looks* at the situation.

What you are struggling with here, people, is the fundamentals of an idea called 'capitalism' or 'the free market' - if someone can provide labour/goods/resources more cheaply, we should use them, so goes the theory, because doing so drives prices down, stablises economies and makes everyone wealthier and "greed, for want of a better word, is good".

This is exactly what happened to the miners in the eighties - it's not that there wasn't coal left to mine in Wales and the North of England, it was that it was cheaper to buy it in France and ship it over, because the EEC poured money into subsidising their industry to make it more 'cost-effective'.

Free Market, Low Inflation, open competition, cost-effectiveness, stable economics: These are the power-phrases of Capitalism, and are held up as being 'moral, right and true'.

But look - they don't say ONE THING about the people who labour under the system. Capitalism cares about Capital, hence the name. It has no care for people, or society; it doesn't matter if person X or social group Y suffer, so long as the market improves, the prices stabilise, profit made and loss avoided. If you want to care about people and society, you need something other than capitalism, you need SOCIALism and that is evil! Evil, they tell you!

But wait, lets take a look at a balance; lets nose at the alternative...

Ok, so the capitalism is causing us pain, lets go ahead and adopt Social poilicies, ones that protect workers and wages at the expense of free trade and open markets, preventing migrant workers from travelling and legislating to prevent companies offering cheaper labour from overseas (or even locally!) - As many of you have said "Surely, the government can protect our jobs?!"

Yes, they can, but doing so is called 'protectionism' and is something we've all moaned to the EU about for years! Protectionism is no silver bullet, especially in times of a recession. Do you realise what happened the last time protectionism was employed during a recession? It was a little something called The Great Depression....

All in all, I would say, be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Let me be the first....

...to say farewell to our fascist, unelected, privacy-hating, technophobic, unaccountable, thieving, fraudulent treacherous ex-overlords.

(begins preparing welcome sign for new overlords....)

@AC 21:36

Well, that was *almost* a cogent argument, but you are in the territory of 'epic fail' due to one small thing...

...you posted anonymously.

If you believe in what you are saying; if you feel that you are morally right; if you are a champion and defender of free speech; why did you choose to hide your identity?

I would submit it is because, deep down, you *know* that a policy of discrimination, of any kind, against anyone, is fundamentally wrong, don't you? After all, you're saying that 'the real Brit' is the one being discriminated against, the one forced into the minority rule, aren't you? QED discrimination is wrong - it doesn't matter *who* is on the receiving end, surely? Or are you so utterly blind as to be unable to see beyond skin pigmentations?

If you're so convinced you are right then step up and be named. I'll even listen to your views and consider any evidence you place in front of me. I doubt I'll agree with much you have to say as I am one of the believers in "There is only one people" and a Marxist, to a degree, but I will give you space to air your beliefs.

Of course, you won't - you are ultimately a coward and will practice cowardly tactics, because you *KNOW* you are wrong, don't you?

No? Come on and prove otherwise then.

@why does everyone moan about a lack of privacy

Ok, no problem...

...So when some I tell my anonymous agencies to send around a little man in a white coat to follow you around, recording all your movements, what you buy, who you talk to/message/email and when, who you meet, what your personal habits are, what your sexual preferences are, your political stances, details of your work....

But, you don't mind.

All day. Every day. He's going to follow you. He'll watch you while you sleep. He'll never answer your questions or even speak to you. You'll never get to see what he is recording about you, or what he's going to do with it.

But you don't mind.

I'm even going to spend money on him so that he's *better* at following you and digging out your details. I'm going to buy a BIG database to record all this in, so I can correlate it with the data I have on all your contacts and associates.

Initially, I'm going to get YOU to pay for this. You don't have a choice, because its the LAW that I made that makes you pay for this. And if thats not enough money then I'm going to sell the information about you to corporations, so that they can profile you as a consumer in a more effective way, ensuring you get the right advertising/insurance/medicines. Because you want that, don't you?

You don't mind.

We're also going to go to your childrens school and ask your child about how you treat them at home. We're going to ask questions like "Does daddy believe in God?", "Does he touch you at all?". Oh yes, we'll fingerprint your children and take a DNA swab while we're at it - just in case we ever need to check their data against them in the Big Database.

But you don't mind.

You don't mind, because you know, don't you, that you can always stop me from sending my little man in a white coat with the clipboard from following you around because you can vote me out - in a few years time.

But I don't mind.

Because I will just pass on the information to whoever takes over from me.

Let's just hope they are as nice to you as I've been, eh?

(The moral of the tale? Just because you are viewed remotely, from behind a camera, it doesn't mean it's alright.)#

Not anonymous. I refuse to be afraid.

@steogede

No. You are wrong.

The expenses data for MPs (and their affliates) are withheld from FOIA in the main. Whilst a certain degree of data regarding the actual sums are revealed in a fixed report, the details of receipts, purchases and the names of those associated are withheld by rules established by the Speaker of the House.. ..and thats why the current speaker is in so much trouble: He's had his hand in the till amongst the worst of them and is now battling to keep that involvement (and the gravy train) out of the public view by lambasting those who have dared to be open, honest and transparent (as government SAYS it is).

He's as guilty as the rest of them of this defrauding of the public purse and now the rats are scrurrying for cover.

Thank heavens for whistle-blowers and the free press! Yes to a whistle-blower charter to protect such people and yes to them making a profit as that encourages whistle-blowing, which in turn should act as a deterrent in future!

If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. But I fear they have something to hide yet.

let me be the first....

....to welcome our vulgar, rotating, giant female overlords.

oh, hang on, thats my wife!

Clearly....

...we need bigger f***ing guns!

...That's not big enough.... *ponder* ... That's not big enough either...

Aha! THAT'S f***ing big enough; I'll take two.

I've changed my mind....

No, go on, really, you can have the NID and the ID Cards and stuff....

....there's no way you'll ever make effective use of it at this rate. Knock yerself out Jaqui.

Better still, let me knock you out instead.

hahaha!

@Miami Mike

Moron or Troll. Those are your only options.

'nuff said.

@Greg Trocchia

Thanks for the enlightening detail, Greg. I'm only an armchair physicist so I'm often left wondering about specific detail after watching the latest round of pop-science documentaries!

erm....

Beg Pardon, Secretary? Is that *really* what you meant to say?!

Finally!

We have an answer to the Eternal Jellyfish! hah!

Now they will face the might of our self-replicating technology!

Let me be the first to welcome our self-replicating overlords (whichever is triumphant in the war to come!)

What about ISPs?

Well now, I'm in the UK but I've always had a question thats not dissimilar to this...

I obtained my broadband waaaaay back in the day when CableTel were the major provider in my area, and I signed a contract with them that didn't make any mention of throttling, caps or FUP. NTL bought out CableTel and made some minor adjustments to the contract without consulting me, limiting my upstream bandwidth to a degree. I let that slide, but then Virgin bought out NTL and made *massive* changes to the contract, hitting my internet access from all sides and in as many ways as you can imagine (and, I suspect, many of you are painfully aware of).

Makes me wonder whether it'd be worth a call to Virgin to request a copy of the 'signed' contract between us that delimits my broadband service, and then, when they fail to produce such a thing (as I never signed any such contract with them, they simply adopted my original CableTel agreement via NTL) whether it'd be worth our time, collectively, establishing a class-action against such unilateral alterations?

Anyone schooled in law around here that might be interested in such an action?

@Chris Hatfield

Quite right! They used to go round back of the bike sheds and play doctor & nurse. Again, the only thing that has changed here is the technology used and the fact that it scares the living daylights out of those who don't understand it.

Same old story, mankind. It you don't understand it, it scares you; if it scares you, kill it!

(PS, please, please stop trying to legislate morality! it's not going to work!)

I think I'm gonna be sad, I think its today....

Ahh, Macca...

He's got a ticket to ride, and he don't care....

Let's get this clear...

Even *if* you consider breach of copyright as a form of theft (I don't; I hold with the legal definition of 'depriving someone of the use of property', for the record) then it's not the poor, poor artists, writers or musicians you are stealing from - it's the corporations; massive multi-nationals, who are the so-called victims.

They've already stolen the rights from the artist who produced the material (Cf: buying land from the Indians using beads), and the originator receives a tiny slice of the pie.

@AC 13:06

Thank you for correcting the Voltaire quotation; I knew I'd got it slightly wrong, but the point still stands.

I expect reactionary, poltically aligned commentary from the tabloids, but I expect better of El Reg!

Thank you for the clarification.

Indigo Children

Just did a google search on this subject....

ohmigod, what a pile of tripe!

@Ru

Can I add the deplorable "e-activities" to that list as well?

@Scott Wheeler

Let me be the first to welcome our equine overlords.

They can't possibly do any worse.....surely?