Posts by Steve 697 publicly visible posts • joined 25 May 2007
Apes have the right to tea parties, the odd cigar and plenty of bananas and that's it. The more talented apes should also have the oppurtunity of a television/movie career.
Some people seem to be forgetting what animals really are - they are our food, our competitors and a source of basic resources. We allow those which are useful/harmless/nice to look at prosper and we kill everything else. They are not our equals, this is why instead of talking about animal rights we should talk about human responsibility. When we talk about inhumane treatment of animals, it's not the animal that isn't being treated enough like a human, it's the person dealing out the maltreatment who is failing to act enough like a human being.
Torturing a chimp does not mean that you are infringing it's rights, it means that you are behaving like a vicious little cunt and that's what needs to be legislated against.
"But describing it as porn is just idiotic and this attitude that the human body is pornographic should be crushed."
On the contrary, what needs to be crushed is the idea that pornography is bad.
After all, the "primary purpose" of the human body is to cause sexual arousal and by so doing facillitate DNA exchange.
"The fact that these incidents make news suggests that they are atypical. There are still millions of people taking photographs every day of the week, without the least interference from anyone."
Try and take a picture of a demonstration - or more particularly, the police handling of a demonstration. Unless you're very clearly part of the mainstream media, photographers/observers are treated as being part of the demo.
The Forward Intelligence Team go around taking pictures and building up files on activists but people have been told that taking pictures of the police counts as harassing them! They do not want any record of events that they can't control.
"From what I have read of the UK , you have a lot of depraved criminals that the police have to protect you from."
Well I'll defer to your judgement then as something that some guy on the other side of the world once read clearly outweighs my first-hand experience of every police officer I've met. You're basically saying, "Be nice to the guy who harasses you, because the guy who'll replace him will shoot you in the face."
Besides, from what I've read of Australia, it's entirely populated by the descendents of depraved UK criminals, baby-eating dingoes, worried sheep and the national dish is something called a barbie(?).
I can whole-heartedly recommend this product to everyone. In tests it outperforms it's nearest rival by up to 28% at whatever it is this thing does. I currently have three and each one came in a colour and had its own wood based storage solution. Only a week after using this product, I went from 14 to 3729 friends on FaceSpace!
But, I found out from a guy I know in Second Life whose cousin works at the factory that they'll be hard to get hold of because they accidently used some secret military processors in them so they're super powerful and the government are trying to buy them all up before the Iranians can get hold of any. Honest.
Now gimme stuff!
"On the one hand, global software firms, taking advantage of their monopoly position, set unreasonably high prices for genuine software while on the other hand, they criticise Chinese for poor copyright awareness. This is abnormal."
How do we go about signing up England as a Chinese province?
"We asked if it was Home office policy to threaten journalists with excommunication if they try talking to senior civil servants. "No," she said. "It's just the way it is.""
So, presumably you'll now be contacting her office to ask for a statement about why civil service press officers feel that they have the right to ignore Home Office policy and implement their own policies on threatening journalists.
You do know that complaining about corporations is not a zero-sum game, right? Maybe Ashlee isn't complaining about Microsoft failing to hand out it's corporate secrets because MS are not going around the world having this conversation with people;
Google: "Look at us, you should all be doing what we are because we're saving the world. Anyone who doesn't is obviously an evil, kitten-drowning monster."
World: "OK, how can we become more green like you."
Google: "Not telling. Trade Secret"
World: "So, we have to do what you're doing but we're not allowed to know what it is that you are doing."
Google: "Yes. Fortunately, you can get around this problem by paying us to do the work for you."
World: "So you, the "non-evil" company, freely admit that what we are doing is destroying the world, you have an alternative that will save the world, but you'd rather keep the commercial advantage than share?"
Google: "Yes"
The reason Google are getting more stick than MS is that MS are simple evil corporate bastards whereas Google are evil corporate bastards who churn out endless bullshit PR about how great they are.Of course all businesses want to portray themselves in a positive light, but the double-think coming out of that place is at epic proportions
Let's face it, we all know that the headline to this article should have read;
Fascist Twat Pisses On Your Shoes
And claims it's raining
Given the number of computers I've seen with fingerprint scanners I reckon their owners must make up a smaller proportion of the population than those who have some nudey pics of their girlfriend.
Does this mean we are all happy for the Government to force us to sign up to an amateur porn database?
Guys, forget the drills and microwaves - you just need a screw driver.
The chip is a disc a little bigger than a 5p coin thats held in place under the rim of the wheelie bin with a plastic plug. Just pry out the plug with a screwdriver and switch the RFID chip with the chip from your MP's bin. It only takes a few seconds.
Or do what I did and throw the chip in the bin - it seemed poetic justice.
So, they've managed to create something that can reach the battle in a third of the time it takes a helicopter while managing to combine it with the payload capabilities of a bloke with a wheelbarrow?
Surely the only use for this is to draw fire whilst the guys on the ground wait for the real helicopter - you know, the device which can hover over an area, land, unload a hell of a lot more than 180kg supplies and then load up about a dozen soldiers for the trip back to base.
That is clearly a lie - it did happen so you do not have systems to ensure it doesn't. You may have a system that *attempts* to prevent these errors, but that is not the same thing.
When I left Npower, I received a final bill about 3 months later and it took me almost another month to convince them that they might want to recalculate it. The reason? The meter reading they claimed to have taken was significantly higher than the meter showed when I received the bill. I had to demand a supervisor before I could get someone to admit that their readings meant I had spent the last quarter generating surplus energy.
1 month later, a bill of about £150 had turned into a rebate of about £100.
He's going into this as the "I'm standing up against The Man" candidate and no matter how much all the politcal commentators go on about splits in the party and complain about the way he has gone about this, he has still gained a lot of respect and support amongst the public.
If nothing else, he has the novelty value of being a front bench politician taking an unequivocal stance on an issue. That alone will get him more support than an ex-editor of the Sun will manage.
"Didn't Einstein say God does not play dice with the universe? I wonder what he would say about this research. "
He is reported to have said that as an attempt to argue against the theory of quantum mechanics. Fortunately he was wrong, if he hadn't been we wouldn't have an internet on which to talk about silly statistics.
There is a certain obviousness to the result though, you're more likely to pick up on the inherent contradictions in the common definitions of god if you are more intelligent. You are also more likely to recognise a logical paradox if you have been formally trained in logical analysis.
@John Hartmann
"Then why is that every atheist I have ever met has been a very low IQ prat that pretends to know everything?"
Because God hates you and he's smart enough not to send his own people to annoy you. Or maybe the intelligent atheists leave when they see you coming.
"Turn around and look into the future - or at least the present, for goodness' sake - why don't you?"
They clearly *are* looking to the future - those lucrative directorships don't grow on trees. These theiving scumbags have done a better job of dismantling our country than Tory privatisation could have ever hoped to manage.
Let's slap a public service requirement on Sky. Teach them that there's a reason that those other broadcasters get subsidies. I am sick and tired of hearing endless bitching about unfair competition every time someone comes up with an idea that doesn't promise millions to a select few companies only to be interspersed with some other corporate parasite telling me how much more efficiently they could run government services. They can't both be right.
If free market competition leads to efficiency and hard work amongs the competitiors, then those who are scared of it clearly know that they are bloated and lazy and would go to wall under truly competitive conditions.
Personally I want the government to *officially* tell Murdoch to fuck off and stop bitching - preferably carried out by some obscure privy councellor wearing ruffles and tights.
"I'm not having a go at the soldiers! They may be stupid, indoctrinated, ignorant and essentially thugs but in no way am I having a go at them!"
For such a brave little lad, I'd like you to repeat your opinions to those "individual soldiers you might know", especially the bits where you call them stupid thugs."
No, what I'm saying is, that if someone I know is stupid enough to sign that piece of paper then I wish them luck and hope they get out in one piece. I'll still tell them it's a really, really bad idea. If it's someone I don't know, I don't feel the need to respect them for doing something that I consider to be a bad idea. Why is this such a difficult concept. If I told you that I belived I would help people by shoving my hand into a fire, would you demand that people respect me for it.
Do you also not realise that you are yet again proving my point. You are implying that if I would not say anything disparaging near a soldier as he would respond with violence - would those be the actions of the honourable warrior or the hired muscle?
Respect can never be gained through threatening force.
"What would a world without armies do if a nation became bent on genocide and ethnic cleansing via armed mobs of irregular civilians for example?"
Respond with armed mobs of irregular civilians. Or maybe use our police force. Or maybe have a special force to defend the country from invasion - no, that is not "just what the army are".
"Also, the blame for why we went into the Great War..."
I never said the military started it, I was correcting the schoolboy version of history where we all started fighting because of the assassination.
"...if Austria-Hungary, France, Germany and Russia had not had major conscription schemes in place, war would have been a far more remote a possibility."
So without the standing armies of conscripts, it would have been harder to start the war. How does that invalidate my assertion that, without armies, governments cannot start wars and that it's harder to keep support for a war when you use conscription? It's easiest to fight with a volunteer military, it's harder with conscripts and it's impossible without any military. This ain't rocket surgery people.
"And that at the end of the day must be your biggest frustration. That you must accept that at some point, you will be placed in a position where you will either have to fight for your rights, or lay down willingly before a greater power who does not believe in such things as free speech, human rights or even things like homosexuality."
What? How does accepting that I might have to defend my rights have anything to do with respecting people who sign up to fight for what is the largest threat against my rights? I'm sure that it felt good when you slipped in that subtle homosexuality reference at the end.
Unfortunately it just shows your own homophobia that you think I'd be insulted by it - I'm not, sorry.
"At the end of the day, I disagree with your opinions. I think they're poorly researched, lack any sort of substance other than to be "different" or to cause a reaction..."
I'm not sure you actually know what my opinions are.
"Your comments about the dead soldier are disgusting. These guys are doing jobs that would make you piss yourself with fear. I would dearly love to see you repeat your comments face to face to these "hired thugs" as you call them.
I am a former Bootneck (go and Google it) and would be more than happy to see you face to face to hear more of your shit opionions."
Which rather goes to prove my point about hired thugs. All these heros who point out that they are fighting to protect my right to have my own opinion are more than happy to resort to violence the moment I say something which they deem fails to show sufficient repect.
I used his name because it was in the article and a handy example, but it's a general point that applies. You can't say he would "still be alive if it weren't for..." when there were other extremely large risk factors involved and umpteen other ways he could have died.
And the two people I've known who joined the marines both assaulted people the first time they returned home. Maybe it's something in the water.
"Have a read of some basic history - like the start of WW1. The fact that mobilisation plans in Europe relied on large numbers of conscripts made war more inevitable following the assassination - read something like Liddel-Hart's history and you should get the idea."
Berlin-Bagdhad railway. Read up on it and then tell me that Arch-Duke Ferdinand's assassination was the only reason we went to war. It is a fact that conscript armies are less effective and harder to mobilise - ask a soldier who they would prefer to watch their back, a conscript or a volunteer. Requiring conscription also leads to greater resistance from the public as people are forced to join against their will. Do you really think we would be in Iraq if Blair had to draught people to get enough troops?
"I think to have a go at the soldiers misses the point. Many are drawn in by the frankly ridiculous TV adverts (Join the Army: It's just like being paid to play on a PlayStation he he he) which are not aimed at the brightest lights on the Christmas Tree "
I'm not trying to have a go at the soldiers, I just don't like being repeatedly told how much I need to respect them - especially those daft enough to fall for those ads. There's only so much sympathy I can find before I just think, "It's the army, not the Post Office. What did you expect?" Individual soldiers that I might know, I wish the best of luck, otherwise they're just an adult who made what I consider to be a very bad choice with foreseeable consequences.
"The military - in essence - do a simple job. We protect those who can't protect themselves."
Yes, governments. Without the backing of military force, governments would not have the power to threaten populations in the first place. Your point is somewhat undermined by the fact that we are currently waging two aggressive wars. Militaries have always been for projecting force against other states and controlling the population at home.
"I'm sure whatever institution or grouping that spoonfed you such beliefs will be happy to applaud your idiotic ramblings so please save it for them, we prefer posters with the capacity for individual thought here."
I can tell just how much you value individual thought by the response to the one contrarian poster. I can't decide if it's paranoia or arrogance to assume that anyone who disagrees with you must have been forcibly indoctrinated by some evil organisation.
I know many people join the army because they think they'll save the world and protect the innocent, but that is not what governments use armies for and I'm afraid ignorance is not an excuse.
"I assume you aren't that old and have no memory of such major events as the Second World War where the armed forces of a number of countries fought and died to stop a particularly bad thug from genocide."
I'm 30. No-one under 60 "remembers" WWII.
"Also in more recent memory you might recall the armed forces doing rather useful things as standing in for firemen when they go on strike, collecting rubbish when dustmen go on strike,"
Unecessary if they were paid a decent wage and I'm more than willing to cut the military budget to pay for it. If they were surprised that they werecalled in to bail out the government then that justifies my claim of "military-grade naivety". Also, a fireman's chances of being asked to run into a burning building during their working lifetime are a lot higher than a soldiers chances of a war being declared or them getting into a random firefight.
"or handling the culls necessary for Foot and Mouth."
Necessary? - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3666896.stm
"Now, I'm sure with your view that you will be happy to forgo services like firemen or police, where the military have supported things in the past."
False dichotomy: love the army or there'll be no fire/police service.
"Furthermore, I'm sure you'll be happy to live under the doctrines and principles of Adolf."
You just broke Godwin's Law. Your Daily Mail subscription is in the post.
"If you disagree with what they do, then you have the right to vote them out."
Surely an expression of opinion.
"Given that New Labour managed to get re-elected after going to war in Iraq, it would seem that a lot of people don't have the bigoted views that you have."
So my bigoted opinion is OK in the ballot box but not on the internet?
"Of course the final point that is worthy of mention is that if we didn't have a professional armed force, then conscription would be much more likely (as happens in many very advanced democracies - like Denmark for example)."
And it would be harder for the government to start an unnecessary and unwanted war.
"Rather than slagging off a soldier who died in his duty, you should thank him for volunteering to do something that means that you weren't forced to do the same, but with less training."
I do not see why volunteering to sign away the right to freedom of thought and do something that I think is wrong should automatically be lauded over any other career choice.
"Slagging off someone for volunteering to protect their country and dying in the process, regardless of whether you agree with the war or not, is a step too far."
The words country, nation and state are often used interchangeably. The person who signs up may use 'country' in the sense that you do, but in practice, it's clear that it has always meant 'state'. From the start, 'King & Country' was a marketting ploy to convince peasants to fight for the king. It's why we haven't had an all powerful monarch in this country for a thousand years. Concentrate to much power in one place and you get led into unnecessary wars which is also why the US was set up with powers seperated between three branches.
The last time I checked we had a volunteer military. Take Major Bacon, for instance;
"If it were not for the breakdown because of a fault with the hydraulic systems of the Merlin helicopter that was due to collect him... that morning he would be alive today ... "
Now, that's a fairly hefty assumption. I would argue that a more accurate statement would be; "If he hadn't been prepared to follow orders without question and kill for money, Major Bacon would not have taken part in the illegal invasion of a foreign nation and it's residents would not have attempted to kill him."
If you sign up for the military, then you are stating that your life is expendable and that you trust the state so much that you will not require an explanation when they order you to kill. And then people are surprised when the military fucks them over. Surely that's at odds with the idea of the educated, professional, modern soldier. In fact I'd say that it was "military-grade naivety"
Personally I'd take all the money and use to balance the NHS books and let them walk to war as I'm not convinced that reducing the mobility of hired thugs is necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, I said "hired thugs" and the best proof of this is the response you get when you state it.
OK, it's running on the same principles as a plane, but it doesn't require the physcal fitness or survival training of a real pilot and you could feasibly do this job while eating pizza.
Surely they should be snapping up all those air force rejects who had good reflexes but who were too short, too asmatic or suffered from too much cake retention to get in a real jet.
It shouldn't be difficult to recruit - you get all the fun of a uniform and a special security pass to impress the ladies while never being more than a short drive from Vegas and having zero chance of the bad guys shooting you.
How can you get in a giant metal box that hurtles across the country at +100mph and have the nerve to complain about the noise?
If they want to do this then they should also have a train guard gaffer-taping people's mouths shut when they enter as I've heard screaming kids and loud conversations that were far more annoying than any phone ringing.
"I'm sure the % of speeders that kill will be significantly less that the % of burglars that kill."
That's because burglars wait until you are asleep and then come in with an axe, chop you and your family into pieces and then steal your TV. No, wait, my mistake, that was just some bollocks I saw on TV.
Burglars come when you are not there as it's easier to rob an empty house than one which is occupied. If a burglar tries to break in when you are there then he'll shit bricks when you turn the landing light on and is more likely to injure himself in his desperation to escape.
Using speeding as a comparison to other crimes is ridiculous as speeding is a crime that the government *expects* you commit. No speed is inherently dangerous, but higher speeds require faster reactions so the speed limit is set so that the majority of people have reaction times that can handle that speed on that road even though they know that statistically some people will be safer driving above that limit than some of those driving below it.
So if you want to use the generic term "speeding" then you also need to take into account every burglary down to the kid who steals a few sweets from the pick 'n' mix or someone who gets given too much change but keeps quiet about it (equivalent to 31 in a 30 zone).
They're incomparable.
How many of you have the slightest idea what's been going on with this case and how many just saw the words "animal rights activists" and started thinking about dug up corpses?
Bear in mind that under this law writing to Staples saying "Please stop supplying Sequani because they carry out vivisection" is a criminal act of harassment if you do it twice.
"The work of so-called animal rights bodies ranges from disturbing to disgraceful. To harrass or intimidate anyone pursuing legal employment simply cannot be allowed. It's nothing more than social terrorism, "
This is the line of thought that bitched about the suffragettes endangering the King's horse and disrupting a good race.
"I do not subscribe to the "they are only doing their job" philosophy."
I do subscribe to that philosophy - they are being paid to talk to me and if I happen to be a thoroughly nasty person who mocks and insults them in an attempt to make their life as unpleasant as possible, that's just part of the job. It's simple market forces. The more abusive we are to these people (advertisers/scammers - same difference), the more they will have to pay their staff to put up with it. The aim is to drive the staffing costs so high that it's no longer economical to phone me up to sell their tat.
Alternatively, in the UK, tell them you want nothing to do with their organization and will consider it harassment if they call you again. A reasonable person in possession of that information would not call again. When they do call again, quote the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 at them;
s1
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct -
(b) which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and
(c) by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)-
(ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do
s2
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
I scared the life out of some kid from Beneficial Finance after I'd explained that the "DNS" note on my file meant Do Not Solicit and that it was put on there by the 2nd of their phone-monkeys to call me. Cue some very hasty apologising from his line manager.
It's not an invasion of privacy because we take pictures of lots of innocent people in the interests of public order. After all, the best way to prevent "disorder" is to intimidate hoi polloi to the point where they will no longer try to take part in any form of protest. Then we can get down to the serious business of running the country while you watch Jeremy Kyle.
Support bull-fighting or support PETA? It's a tough call when PETA kills over 90% of the animals given to it to be adopted.
Personally, I think the bull-fighting should be allowed as long as it's one on one - get rid of the guys who half kill the bull before-hand. If you want to pick a fight now, then good luck to you.
What is your name?
Steve
Where do you live?
Peterborough, UK
Where did you go on your worst ever holiday?
News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY
What is the worst, most disappointing, or most embarrassing anecdote you can bear to remember from your holiday?
Awful place, full of whiny self-important media types trying to flog their books.
Worst part was when I bumped into some shameless hack who insisted on trying to get me to buy his nonsense book about why everything British is so much better than anything foreign. Furthermore he expected me to tell all my friends and relatives and anyone I might meet on the street about how great his book was and how they should all buy it.
I believe you can read all about in in his next book "How to pretend your book launch is actual news in an attempt to garner a load of free advertising and hype for what would otherwise be toilet paper."
Title to be confirmed.
"For those people who have studied all the sciences I think they would agree that the mind set for biology is very different to that of the other sciences, this I believe is down to the fact that women have historically been more involved with this subject and hence their way of thinking has been adopted as the norm."
That's because biology is a messy pile of vaguely defined relationships which is ideal for girls to sit around and gossip about.
Physics has rules that cannot be changed by crying.
And also lasers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
