132 posts • joined 29 May 2007
Every fifth person?
"we are currently randomly searching every fifth person."
So as long as you can count the number of people in front of you and do the basic maths involved then you can carry a chieftain tank past plod and he'll be none the wiser. He also has to have reasonable grounds to search you - I'm not sure if being fifth in line is quite what the law expects as reasonable but if that's what we're working with here you could refuse to be searched if you were say 3rd in line because the "reasonable" grounds the police officer is searching on is "every fifth person". Although refusing to be searched would then be deemed as reasonable suspicion and refusal to comply might get you shot 7 times (4 to the head).
Luckily for plod we've had a Labour Government for the last, omg, it seems like forever, 11 years or so, so the chances of any knife-wielding yoofs having the ability to count is remote.
I do think that security has been compromised by the police detailing their cunning plan. How are we to take this seriously?
I followed a lorry this morning to work...
...on which someone had daubed in the grime on the back of the wagon:
"NO DEAD PROSTITUTES STORED IN THIS VEHICLE OVERNIGHT".
It amused me. :-)
"You must be so proud. What a spirited stand for your rights. I applaud you, sir. No, I do. I do."
Not really Sarah, but when pushed I generally push back - it's just my nature. And yes, it was inflammatory and I expect to be firefighting all afternoon but what else was I to do?
@Too many self-interested people
"Freedom does include the abiltiy to smell flowers, fresh air, even unpleasant things, without the smell of someone's smoke covering everything, possible rather more than your freedom to spend money on drugs and expect the rest of us to put up with the results of which you are unaware."
Freedom also includes the ability to cover everything with the smell of smoke. The oil companies have been profiting from this for years. And exactly what hardships are you having to put up with that are caused by me? I am unaware of them because there aren't any. What you advocate is freedom for you to do what you want but fuck anybody else that tries.
About smoking. I was in a pub smoking lounge a few years ago (when it was still allowed) and some arrogant bastard (was it you) started complaining noisily to her husband about the smoke. I pointed her to the no smoking bar which was just a few feet away and in a separate room but no, this wasn't good enough for her - "why should I be forced to move" she exclaimed and I replied that nobody was forcing her to do anything. I then proceeded to blow my smoke directly at her until her husband threatened me with violence at which stage the landlord ejected them both.
The same pub is now out of business since the smoking ban was brought in. See how these policies affect real people? And you're worried about your clothes smelling a bit, well fuck me, that's obviously more important than a family forced to move and endure financial hardship and a village left without a central cultural hub that was the pub.
Freedom has many guises but must always be tempered with tolerance. I've tolerated you bunch of puritanical bastards all of my life but I don't often see it reciprocated and the smoking issue is where it's most apparent. Is it because we've stripped your "right" to be discriminatory on racial, sexual, religious lines that you now feel the need to pick on somebody else, someone who you're "allowed" to discriminate against? Why do you feel the need to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do? That's the real issue here. I'm not telling you how to live your life so why do you feel that you have the right to tell me how to live mine?
Isn't it easier for everybody concerned if you just go and sit in the other bar? Or isn't that good enough for you? Do you really want it all your own way? That's not freedom, that's dictatorial.
Learn some tolerance and you will immediately become happier.
@Boris the Cockroach
Your point is what? That kids shouldn't do drugs? Well Duh!
Children (and for the sake of argument, let's put the cap at 18) will cause themselves harm if they smoke cannabis because they are still developing physically and mentally. Similarly, children should not drink alcohol or operate heavy machinery or prostite themselves because it does them harm.
Has anybody, either the author or any respondent, stated that children should be allowed to smoke cannabis?
So again, was there a point to your post that wasn't blindingly obvious to everybody already? We already agree kids shouldn't smoke cannabis but we're not talking about kids are we? I'm surprised you didn't just write "won't somebody think of the children" and have done with it.
"Why is it people defending the goverments position have to post as AC, do they realise their arguement is weak and not want to be attached to it?"
It's because they've bought into the Government philosophy hook line and sinker and are therefore terrified to stand up and be counted. They honestly believe that all the people with names on these boards will band together and hunt them down like the dogs they are and stab them to death whilst wearing hoodies and screaming "infidel".
It's not cannabis that makes you paranoid, it's the fucking Government.
Oh, and it's also because their arguments are weak and they don't want to be attached to them. ;-)
"If the system allows amendments and deletions to be made without a full trace being preserved, then the data is not secure. If a full trace is preserved then records can only be cloaked rather than deleted."
There is one simple flaw in your logic. This is NuLabour and therefore security is not an option, only fear is an option. Records can and should be deleted and no trace preserved.
"Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys, having reasoned through the implications of the technology that he ushered in, made it clear at the outset that if they were to allow social equity DNA profile databases would have to be all or nothing. Most still seem to ignore the valid argument that he presented."
You must have missed the point of Sir Jeffreys argument, the main crux of it being that the Government should not be allowed direct access to it.
You make it sound like Sir Jeffreys is in full support of the Government's plans for a DNA database and I can assure you that this is far from being the truth. Most of the people who ignore Sir Jeffreys valid argument are the Government, probably because Sir Jeffreys main argument for a DNA database includes the suppression of Government access to it. As a scientific tool which could reap health benefits for millions of people, the Government want to take his research and turn it into a tool to suppress people. Sir Jeffreys is understandably a bit miffed at this, and rightly so.
Truth stranger than fiction
This is the Lords right? Unelected aristocracy fighting for my liberty where our elected officials just "promise to listen in the future". Well the future is NOW.
I've decided that next election I'm going to vote for The Queen! Bring back monarchy, out with Stalinism! I swear allegiance to The Queen of England, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
"And since the current UK government knows no limits to its sheer snoopiness, you may be sure that we'll even discover how many pairs of red lace crotchless panties Mad Jacqui owns."
Though I appreciate the levity of your post, the paragraph above has forced me to book my lobotomy early. I mean... EUUUUWWW
Think of Paris, think of Paris, think of Paris.....
@AC (Not Maggie's Mate)
"Its about time some of you started to see beyond... ohhh blame the Gov, its always their fault. The truth is that its not always their fault (although its always their responsibility I must admit)."
The truth is that they are still planning more and more databases with my data held on them and with a track-record that is ludicrous. This is why people blame this government. It's not the loss of data that they're to blame for (though giving contracts to the lowest bidder is hardly the way we get quality now, is it?), it's the plans to lose more data that's pissing everybody off, including myself but not including you apparently.
Strange how somebody who supports the government (or at least doesn't condemn the government) over this issue should choose to remain anonymous. Are you scared we're gonna lose your data? If you value your anonymity then vote for a Government that won't waste taxpayers money on huge and unworkable centralised databases. Otherwise, just post all of your details here, your name, address, banking details, date of birth and mother's maiden name and I promise that we will look after it better than this present government ever could.
If you've nothing to hide then you've nothing to fear but if you have nothing to fear then you're either stupid or incredibly naive.
Ministers aren't stupid
They want to keep their own details off all of the planned national databases, they're no fools. They just think the rest of us are stupid.
How many more government data losses do we need before Jacqui Smith gets sacked? Let us know so the people with access can lose some more data quickly.
Mine's the one with the unencrypted data key in the pocket with the hole in it.
Odd, isn't it, that every child in the country is required to be registered on this database because they are potentially at risk except for children of ministers who, strangely enough, would potentially be at risk if they were included on the database. Anyone care to explain to me how this works? Can't ministers be child abusers?
"I find it very odd that people keep equating the current Nu Labour government to Communists."
It depends what people's idea of communism is. I imagine a lot of people are confusing Communism with Stalinism. I just wish that this government would understand that 1984 is an idea to be avoided, not a project plan to be implemented.
"Heh. Before the university here finally started blocking the windows messenger port in about 2000 or so, I was mainly seeing ads on how I should make my wang bigger. Luckily I did not personally use a Windows box -- I mainly used a Mac to ssh into a Linux box."
Does this mean you still have a small penis?
What if I don't opt in or opt out?
If I don't opt in or opt out when prompted and simply browse away from that page (which I assume is an option as there is the text "You may have left this page without choosing to switch BT Webwise on or off last time, so we are showing it again to ensure we record your choice." on the options page), will my defaulted option be opted in or opted out?
Will my data still be passed through Phorm servers? What will Phorm do with the data? Parse it or not?
I'm asking here because you're bound to have more of a clue than BTs technical helpline, even if you have absolutely no clue whatsoever.
BT are already aware that I'll cancel if they bring Phorm anywhere near me. I don't think I'll have any issues with early termination fees. If I do, I'll sue. :-)
@Ben, @Mark & @Non-creationist christians
"in England we never Mix Faith with politics."
Shouldn't that be: "In England we have no faith in politics"?
"However, I don't think there are any creationists who AREN'T Christian."
Apart from all of those Jewish folk and all of those Muslim folk, in fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a creation story (and I've studied a lot of religions, a vast amount).
Anyone who claims to be a christian who isn't a creationist has no basis to claim they are a christian as it's obvious they don't believe the Bible. You can't cherry pick this shit (though I'm sure you'll claim you can), you either believe or you don't believe. Maybe you should choose another "religion" that ticks all of the boxes but doesn't require you to be a moron: try Humanism, I think you'd like it, it's all the good stuff about treating people right and having good social values without any of the bollocks about trolls, fairies and gods.
"2. Evolution is a theory with holes in it. These holes may be resolved over time but I'm sick of it being thrust on us as a fact, which it is not."
Stop talking now. Though Evolutionary Theory is a Theory, i.e. "NOT A FACT" (would you like me to go slower?), and I quote from the article which you purport to have read, "so far nothing better than evolutionary science has emerged to explain biological processes".
The main thing that makes the theory of evolution doubtable is the amount of complete fuckwits around on these boards who feel that they can argue a case against it by just stating "I don't believe it" or "despite the fact that I can make many predictions based on this theory that can be proven through tests, the Bible tells me different and I believe the Bible". But then again "survival of the fittest" doesn't necessarily mean "survival of the people with rational working minds".
If you want a real argument for creationism then read 1984, the thought police are particularly good at explaining this alternative theory (and that's no joke, read it and learn something so at least we can have a proper philosophical debate. They didn't argue for or against the existence of God, they simply proved that a man can fly and that 2+2=5 - but maybe read the next paragraph first, especially the last statement as that's also a requirement of successful debating).
But the real question here is: how the fuck did you manage to survive infancy? Do you just instinctively believe everything you're told by your parents and the people your parents have vetted? I ask this because I remember from a very early age that I was unable to do this. I demanded proof of everything and still do. I fell out with the Anglican church when I was 6 years old when I decided that if I wasn't allowed to question their theories (and I was told that I could not) then they could all fuck off and die (though this is just a small part of the child abuse that the church is responsible for, it's the one I'm qualified to talk about). Grow a fucking brain and learn how to use it.
And to think, people with analytical skills as good as yours (i.e. very very flawed) could soon have the most massive arsenal on the planet at their disposal.
But enough of the vitriol, though god knows you deserved it (and yes, I asked him, and he came to me in a vision, stole all my pop tarts, didn't flush the toilet and told me, "yes, that anonymous coward deserved at least the amount of vitriol you gave him, probably more"), let's hear your theory on how biological processes work then shall we?
Alternatively, shut the fuck up!
Now, for the sane people amongst you. Why is it that these religious types think that they are smarter than Darwin?
And, just for the record: Atheists haven't got a clue either. Your arguments provide no proof and you expect me to take a leap of faith to deny that very faith, surely that's a dichotomy. I can't work out which is worse to be honest.
I am an Agnostic. The only thing I understand is that I don't understand. However, I'm also aware that none of you understand either (and that's a fact) which is why it really pisses me off when people claim they do.
"been re-reading 1984 recently"
Me too, the parallels it draws 60 years after it was penned are just plain scary. The amount of DOUBLETHINK is increasing. It should be essential reading in schools in my opinion.
p.s. replies to Webster are pointless, he's a scared little boy who believes the government-approved conspiracy theories. NEWSPEAK: GOODTHINKER.
Paris because she's only a rebel from the waist downwards.
@AC 17:08 GMT
"You do know that it's an actual crime to break into someone else's email account, right? I mean, being clever and all, you do actually grasp that this was a criminal act?"
Really? All I know is that if I was to phone 999 and report my email account had been hacked I would more than likely face a charge of wasting police time, the best result I could possibly expect would be for the operator to laugh at me and tell me to get real.
But then again, I'm not a VP candidate with a private (public funded but private none the less) army to do my bidding.
"I guess it's been enough decades for yall to forget that millions of God-fearing Americans cut from the same cloth as Palin as they gave their lives and blood to free europe from someone else who did'nt believe in God."
Believe whatever you want to believe. The fact that you believe in God means that you already do this but remember one thing, the truth is not open to democratic decision making processes.
Now fuck off!
I'd much prefer...
...someone to finish the Dirk Gently novel that we read a bit of in The Salmon of Doubt.
H2G2 is complete and doesn't require anymore input - all of the loose ends have been tied up: "Options collapsed, possibilities folded into each other, and the whole at last resolved itself out of existence."
"I wonder why it is that people who base their lives on what science preaches, demand such a high standard of proof of religion, whilst demanding virtually no proof at all from the priests of science?"
Rubbish. I demand proof of everything, the difference is that science provides evidence and sometimes even proof whereas religion provides none. All of the arguments I've seen here which try to debunk evolution are, to be honest, childish. I could argue your case for Creationism better than anybody I've seen in this thread with the possible exception of Wayne Morellini who is unusual in that he actually thinks logically about the issue and doesn't just repeat what he's been told. I'd like to talk to Wayne but I'd just want to distance myself from the rest of the religious fanatics that have been posting here because you are, for the most part and in varying degrees, barking mad.
"Fine, it's okay for me to kill you then. (End of argument.)"
The point you're trying to make here is that religious people have more morals than non-religious people and I find that vastly offensive. Is all that's stopping you going on a rampage and killing people a faith in the teachings of The Bible? I don't need the threat of a deity casting me into eternal damnation to stop me killing people so who, out of the two of us, has more morals? The one who would like to kill people but whose deity has forbidden it or the one who has a respect for the law and realises (through rationalising) that without laws anarchy ensues and we are all fair game? One demonstrates rational thought processes, one demonstrates a belief in superstition - which would you employ?
Let's get the opinions of some people who were abused as children by their priests or vicars shall we, then we'll see who can hold the moralistic high ground.
Christians, Muslims and Jews have been killing each other for millennia yet it's written in your scripture "Thou shalt not kill". Does that not seem a tad hypocritical?
By the way, I mentioned millennia but there is no such thing, there was just a Millennium. The Millennium was the 1000 years that Christ would rule the earth (Revelations 20:1-7) and guess what, that Millennium ended 1008 years ago. Get with the times.
And why is it that I have more knowledge about The Bible than people who profess to believe in it? Have any of you people who profess to be religious actually ever read The Bible? From what I read here it would seem not but that doesn't surprise me from a faith that rewards ignorance.
All religious people suffer from delusional psychosis and seriously need to get help before they fulfil their prophecy and destroy the world.
Seriously - Get Help!
"Yes, quite. And nor is Creationism part of the curriculum, nor has it been suggested that it should be. Actually all that's been suggested is "if it does happen to come up in the course of a lesson, teachers should be prepared to discuss it with sensitivity and respect"."
I was referring to the curriculum as a whole. Creationism (of various mainstream faiths) is on the curriculum and is discussed in RE classes, Atheist views are not on the curriculum despite the fact that there are more non-religious people in this country than religious people. You were referring to science classes and inferring that I hadn't read the article while in the next sentence you inferred that I had been disrespectful:
"Interesting fact: It's possible to have respect for religious beliefs without adhering to any yourself."
Where did I disrespect anyone's religious beliefs? Unless you count having the audacity to question God's great plan (what an arrogant bastard I must be). But what's more to the point is why should I respect anyone's religious beliefs?
I respect your right to believe anything you choose to, however, why should I be forced to respect a view that is abhorrent to me? Do you really expect to be able to force me to respect your or anybody else's fantasies? Let's get real shall we? Or would you prefer to burn the Heretic at the stake?
It's the same as the free speech argument. You may be a fascist and I respect your right to hold that view because I believe in the right to free speech and freedom of expression. I don't, however, respect fascism or fascists.
I just invoked Godwins Law. Apologies for that but I simply couldn't think of another political movement that I had no respect for whatsoever (that's not to say there isn't one). Besides, there are other old Usenet Laws that have already been broken in this thread and we survived those.
Paris because the more we are exposed to this awful icon the more chance that El Reg will capitulate and give us the real Paris back.
"Are you suggesting that R.E lessons never contain any discussion of Atheism as a viewpoint?"
Whether or not "Atheism" (I know a lot of atheists who would argue that "Atheism" does not exist, one can be an atheist but one cannot believe in atheism as this implies belief in a system of non-belief which would, in itself, be contradictory) is ever discussed in RE lessons is immaterial, I'm sure it is discussed as a huge percentage of the students are from non-religious backgrounds and some of them are intelligent enough to question the whole religion thing, the fact is that "atheism" is not part of the curriculum so there will be no guarantee that it's discussed.
Thank you for that, it was beautiful. However, much as I can't disagree with it and to a large extent I like to believe something similar myself, it doesn't follow that this Entity is God or that this Entity is self-aware, let alone aware of our existence.
YHWH (God of Bible fame) isn't just a creator, he's is apparently much more. A shepherd to guide us, our salvation after death. The Entity of which you speak only seems to fit into one of these categories.
I'm aware that you never suggested that your particular entity was a guide or the keeper of the afterlife or YHWH, I have no idea if you are religious or which religion you may follow but I've found that when people talk about God then they usually mean a whole range of things that have nothing to do with Creation.
As beautiful as your theory is, it's a long way from this viewpoint to the Pearly Gates.
"what i'm more concerned about is that the holy grail of evolution may still have some hard questions to answer before it is touted as 'fact'."
The Theory of Evolution has never been touted as fact, it's a theory. There is, however, overwhelming evidence to suggest that the theory is true. On the other hand there is no evidence to suggest that creation myths are true and lots of evidence to suggest that they are not. One could argue that the science fiction writings of L Ron Hubbard are fact but we all know they're stories (the clue is in the term "science fiction").
"What interested me was an article i read (need to try and find again as it was about 7 years ago) by an mathematician, who pointed out that, in mathematical terms, the probability against all the elements coming together in the 'primordial soup' to make the first life form was so huge we would (mathematically, i presume) say it was impossible."
When you consider these figures alongside an infinite universe they suddenly become pretty good odds. The fact that it happened here is immaterial because, as the observer, we have to be somewhere and wherever we are is, by definition, "here".
"I suppose all i am trying to say is that blinkered thinking can have a religious veil or scientific veil, depending on what shoes you're wearing...."
This is true enough but scientists for years have studied evolution and tried to disprove it (that's what scientists do, they don't try to prove anything, they try to disprove things using scientific method) and like it or not, evolution theory holds a lot of water when scientific method is applied. We may never be able to prove it conclusively but disproving it may be impossible. Have a go at disproving it, I'm sure the scientific community would welcome any empirical evidence against evolution but all we ever seem to get is conjecture. Just because evolution can't explain something specific doesn't mean it's not true, it just means we don't know the answer, it doesn't mean there isn't one.
I trust you accept Newton's Laws of motion? Would it surprise you to learn that they don't always work? We can still apply them to everyday situations and get the right results but we can also prove them to be wrong under certain conditions. Are you suddenly going to stop believing that, if a bus hits you, you will be thrown in the opposite direction to which the bus was travelling at a speed determined by the speed and the mass of the bus and your mass? Of course you're not.
"Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. Finding the truth is difficult and the road to it is rough." - Ibn Al-Haytham
As a secularist I have no objection to schools teaching creationist theories in classrooms as long as they are even handed in their approach and include all creationist myths.
This should be fun when they get to Egyptian mythology as Atum was the first god arising from the waters of chaos. He created the world by masturbating and also gave birth to two other gods, Shu and Tefnut from his emissions.
There are many other amusing stories of creation, it should keep the children entertained for a while and may even serve to get the kids who were unfortunate enough to be indoctrinated into their parent's religion to start thinking logically about the whole issue.
So as long as they are going to teach creation myths and not just A creation theory with a heavy bias on christianity, islam, judaism, whatever then I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Teaching it alongside evolution theory and labelling it as science is, however, ludicrous.
I want the old icons back, I'm missing Paris already. Apart from that small thing though I like the changes.
Jacqui Smith doing the right thing?
Hopefully her encore will be to resign!
Not so hard to fathom why this species was tested under these conditions. It makes sense that, if you're looking for an organism that can survive in space, you would start with extremophiles. The waterbear survives in some of the harshest conditions on earth so it seems a fairly good choice for this experiment.
Also, the cost of making tiny little spacesuits for waterbears would have proved cost inhibitive.
They've had none of my money since they screwed up Ultima Online. They're on my shitlist along with 3, Orange and Pipex. I have a long memory and I hold a grudge forever. As soon as other companies learn this the world will be a better place. Screw your customers and your customers will screw you.
If the anti-cloak is apparent from the outside...
...why not just have a peephole like the author originally suggested?
Yes, it will read PDFs.
"I am NOT a bigot (And I take offence at that comment, said in public I think I'd be considering a slander and defamation of character lawsuit)"
You've already had a trouncing at the hands of some readers, and deservedly so. I just wanted to ask whether you'd actually read your post before hitting send (or indeed since then). How do you think your litigation would go when your post was exhibit A?
You are seriously confused. Maybe you should consider joining the BNP or a local fascist organisation, you'd fit right in.
I don't like your opinion. Does that mean I should have you killed? After all, I'd only be playing by your rules, would that be ok? Of course it wouldn't.
You are a bigot! (so sue me - I dare you).
Tell it to the government
“For many years we have urged organisations to consider the impact on individuals’ privacy before developing new IT systems. However progress has been disappointing,"
Title says it all.
However, disappointment is what we've come to expect from this government so 10 out of 10 for consistency.
"Mersenne prime + Large Hadron Collider = 10th September is end of the world."
Well thank fuck for that. This will save me a load of hassle.
Anyone who thinks infinity is a prime number is kidding themselves.
Infinity/2 = Infinity
Infinity/3 = Infinity
Infinity/4 = Infinity
Shall I go on?
Or shall I get my coat?
"An automated telephone system that definitely isn't "monitored or recorded for training purposes" right?"
Why, having made a secure system, would you then introduce levels of insecurity?
It definitely would be monitored. How else would you get the key presses logged in a database? No need for any human intervention at any stage of this so it's inherently more secure than ANY system that involves people.
"That's great, but how would you set up a telephone banking password like that in the first place? Maybe make 3 calls to 3 different operators and give them 2 characters at a time?"
An automated telephone system maybe?
Am I just smarter than you?
your all saying it should be blanked out, how are they suppose to verify its you ?
you " the password 1234abc"
bank - all they see on the screen is *******
Ok, let's try shall we?
The bank system could request the operator asks for the 2nd and 4th characters of the password.
Bank: What are the 2nd and 4th characters of your password?
You: 3 and F
Bank: (sounds of typing)
Bank's Computer system allows access
Bank: Thank you Mr Buxton, how can I help you today?
It's not rocket science, just simple security.
It seems that the customer is always right
Even as they try to dig themselves out of the hole they've created they get deeper.
The trick is to dig UP.
Lloyds is pants!
Cue fanboi accusations etc etc etc. Yawn...
You referred to the functionality of your iPhone as "seriously deficient" and expect anyone to call you a fanboi? Dream on! ;)
Par for the course
"it would be below us to suggest that even the pirates have a hard time selling Vista."
No, it would be predictable.
FYI Jacqui Smith
It is possible to restrict access to USB ports. I guess your system isn't as secure as you think. How much did it cost me, the taxpayer? I'm sure if I'd have purchased this system I would have got a better deal and maybe even some security.
Your department is responsible for holding this data, the data was lost yet it's not your responsibility? How does that work then?
Grow some bollocks and admit when you're wrong, it would be rereshing to see this quality in a politician. And while you're about it Jacqui, grow a fucking brain too.
Mine's the one with the memory stick in the pocket containing details of all of my company's customers which is for sale to the highest bidder because I won't be fucking prosecuted for it.
"Think about it you cretins!! If people were only downloading legal content then the amount of traffic would be far lower and the ISPs would not throttle the traffic."
Hey cretin, if people didn't commit crime then we wouldn't need a fucking police force. As people commit crime we have a police force. I don't expect the police to kick my door in because somebody in Preston (approximately 70 miles away from my home) steals a cupcake from Tescos so why should I be punished for other people's indescretions and why should I put up with being called a cretin by the likes of you?
"Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law."
So eating someone's penis (and not in a nice way) doesn't violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral law in Germany then? I knew they were keen on Frankfurters but this is maybe going too far.
"How did BT get the Tiscali customer data? BT Wholesale is supposed to be a totally separate entity, if they're sharing data it is in direct contravention of the Anti-Trust ruling made against them..."
Surely this isn't hard to fathom out. Obviously some greedy grabbing bastard at Tiscali sold it to BT. Not all customers got the letter (as some have posted here) and these are the people who ticked the little box that said "I don't want you to share my data with third parties who we think provide a service that is relevant to you" or similar.
Although, I must admit, BT can do whatever the fuck they like with people's personal data - the law quite clearly doesn't apply to them.
That's scuppered it
DOOM!!! That's what we want, more DOOM!!!
Then this comes along and at last there is light.
May I be the first to make the very cynical comment that this is a very clever game the government have just played, everyone who cares about the privacy laws in this country was also probably naturally sceptical about issues like adopting the Euro as currency and now it doesn't look such a bad prospect.
I for one welcome our evil Belgian overlords.
On a more serious note I've just read that we have the worst lifestyle of any country in Europe, higher costs, more hours work, less holidays, more rain, lower life expectancy, that sort of stuff. Maybe Brussels can impose sanctions on our Government until they sort it out. It could be the third thing that Steven Raith was talking about. We can then at least turn on the Large Hadron Collider with a sense of impending doom, I'm already beginning to miss it.
I've never been with T-Mobile but I'll take your word for it. I have been with Orange and I remember why I left (the words "thieving lying fuckwits" spring to mind but I can't say that as it would leave me nothing to say about 3 who are actually worse than Orange could ever aspire to be and have managed to take thieving lying fuckwittery to a whole new previously unexplored level).
So 3 have the audacity to complain about another operator? I've been complaining to 3 for a year and a half about their crap service (including outright lies they have told to me) and they don't care about that - double standards I feel.
T-Mobile can probably argue in court that lying is what the entire mobile phone business is based upon and there is therefore no case to answer to.
I don't care how many free minutes any of the bastards are offering or how many free iPhones or broadband or cars or yachts or holidays abroad or trips to the moon they offer to get me to sign a contract - all the fucking about from these companies has put me off for life. When just one of these companies takes a serious approach to customer services, instead of treating me like a twat for the length of the contract and then offering me cash in lieu of crap customer services simply to get me to sign up again to be treated like a twat again for the length of the contract, then I may consider dealing with them again (though I doubt it will be in this lifetime).
For once, and surprisingly, yes.
Police Baiting with Cameras is the New Black
"Where journalists and members of the public come into contact with the police, they are urged always to keep their cool."
Why is this necessary? Is it because we all know that your average plod has an IQ that a bullfrog would be proud of, can't deal with a reasonable and reasoned argument and when confronted by logic generally just put their "case" forward in a very blunt manner (i.e. "you'll do exactly what the fuck I tell you to do or you're nicked" - and this is a direct quote from a police officer) or simply beat you up (admittedly, I haven't had personal experience of this since the late eighties).
The problem has been around for a very long time. I do not have any legal qualifications, have never worked in crime prevention but I do have an IQ over 130 and I tend to know more about the law than the people who enforce it.
In future I'll be sure to ask for a court order and if plod then insists on stealing my equipment I'll have no choice but to perform a citizen's arrest - that should be fun!
How we laughed for 42 days until the bastards let us out!
Mine's the one with the high-powered SLR* in the pocket, I'm off to bait some policemen. >:-)
That's "Single Lens Reflex" and not "Self-Loading Rifle" (just in case the thought police are watching).