... it's ok if *we* are doing it...
5397 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... it's ok if *we* are doing it...
"- full of the kind of people you wouldn’t want to share an elevator with, let alone date.”
Erm, I think as far as most people are concerned it is *already* like that!
You're clearly a dangerous subversive for not using a proper all-American operating system (well, Windows) and must therefore be locked up for the good of society!
The problem is that the Police can't (or won't) do anything about it.
I had a scam caller who I kept stringing along for a while, then asked if his mother knew that her son was a liar and a thief and would she be proud that he was a scammer who tries to rip people off?
He started getting abusive, so I returned the compliment, then hung up after which he phoned back and yelled "I know where you live and I'm coming to rape you!" (Yeah, sure)
However I decided to contact the Police, but after coming round and taking some details they basically said "we can't do anything because the number was withheld".
Now it's my understanding that this only means that the phone company (Virgin Media) won't pass on the number if I do a 1471, not that they don't have the number at all, but there seemed to be a lack of interest or desire to actually do anything about this by getting the number off Virgin to take it further.
It is not what that theft would achieve, it's that El Reg should be setting a good example!
So why were they...
... oh US Patent Office, enough said.
"...this Stegosaurus probably would have had quite a large rear end"
It may be fair to say that, but given how dangerous it is to answer your gf's question "does my bum look big in this?" think how risky it would be to say anything to a 1.6 tonne dinosaur!
> whataboutery is an infallible sign of somebody with no argument and no inclination to work at constructing one.
Sorry, were you talking about Morozov or Worstall...?
... Tim Worstall cherry picks a bit of someone else's writing and then uses it to build a Straw Man around so he can knock it down and show the "superiority" of his position.
For instance the article he (eventually) links to says:
"To take advantage of all the opportunities offered to us by Silicon Valley – including such fancy-sounding projects as Internet.org – one must first agree to share one’s data in exchange for free services. One has to be very naive to believe that this data is not going to shape how we live the rest of our lives, especially when insurance companies and banks are so eager to incorporate it in their decision-making."
Now I think most El Reg readers accept that the massive data agglomeration by the Googles, Facebooks and so on of this world is not necessarily a good thing for *us*, yet TW ignores this point completely.
TW then says "that consumption inequality of tech products has been falling", but the article also says: "It conceals the fact that the nominally free information available on Google is not equally useful to an unemployed graduate and a secretive hedge fund with access to sophisticated technology to turn data into trading insights", yet he ignores this too, seeming to think that we should be content with the Bread and Circuses we are offered and ignore the man behind the curtain.
TW makes a dig: "how clever a Morozov can be in uncovering the feet of clay of our current gods" but what, exactly, is wrong with this?
Should we sleepwalk blithely into a future where we find that we have given away control of our data and our lives to businesses which have no accountability to us or, possibly indeed, our elected governments (see TTIP etc for details)?
These corporations have no interest in our well-being, only in what we can do for their bottom lines and that is something that can be seen by looking at what happened with the "well they did it in the past, so it must be ok" Barons such as Carnegie, JP Morgan and Rockefeller to name a few who made their money by screwing the little guys who worked for them and buying out or bankrupting their competition simply so they could increase their own bloated fortunes even more.
As George Satayana said: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, yet that is what Tim Worstall seems to want to happen.
You mean they'd actually been there?
Or is that just not cool-sounding enough?
"... that both warns the cyclist when a vehicle is overtaking,"
Thus removing the need for Lifesaver shoulder checks? Hmm.
> and alerts motorists of the presence of the e-bike by illuminating handlebar lights.
Thus meaning motorists don't need to make proper observation because the bike will do it for them.
I was going to post something similar. Exactly *how many* billions of dollars does he need to live comfortably?
... one rule for them...
... but I loved the cartoon explanation!
"...is spent on performing the technical job that it was originally created to carry out."
And that tells you just what a scam the whole dot nonsense business is.
Y'know, I could have sworn that I've heard Merkins objecting to the Executive Branch trying to meddle in the affairs of the Judiciary, yet now you seem to be saying that you *want* them to do that...
... and I said it to Orville: That thing will never get off the ground, so why bother trying in the first place?
Or perhaps "Some said that even the trees were a mistake and we should never have left the oceans".
We learn by *trying things*. Maybe they work, maybe they won't, but until we try we'll never know.
> this was the reasoning behind redefining "marriage" to include homosexual relationships,
No, limiting people's minds was the reasoning behind the *objections* to allowing gays to be "married".
> if I buy the means to that satisfaction; if a significant number of women I see and hear want to be my dirty little slut-whore, what kind of person does that indicate that I am?
I would say it indicates that you are someone who enjoys a bit of fantasy role-play in his sex life, along with a large number of other people in the population.
I would also presume that, like them, you also have a conscience and can tell the difference between fantasy and reality and know that enacting these things in real life with a non-consenting partner is not a good thing.
However to then call for such fantasies to be banned because of a spurious "slippery slope" argument or because "well there might be *someone* who can't tell the difference and could do something bad" relies on the sort of fallacious post hoc justificiations that lead to the Extreme Pornography laws and the desire to find a scapegoat to blame for something.
> As long as "no-one gets hurt" are we likely to progress from pretend-sex to trying it out in the real world?
Provided those partners are capable of giving *lawful* consent, what business is it of yours or anyone else?
> If you have an alcoholic or a heroin addict, do you put them in a padded room with alcohol and drugs and say, "off you go" or do you try to break the addiction and keep them away from places where they may be exposed to the temptation to indulge?
If people wish to indulge in drugs and alcohol, it's their choice.
If they want help, support mechanisms should be in place to enable them to get that help.
Prohibitions of alcohol and drugs have been shown to fail time and time again, but still our politicians and "moral media" won't grasp the nettle and admit that their "solutions" have failed and it's time to try a different approach.
> i'm sure some form of therapy can be included in this world where the kids turns out to beat the crap out of them everytime they try it and huge electric shocks in the real world induce real pain.
Oh, you mean just like the gay "cures" being offered by some Moral Crusader quacks? Yes, let's beat the sin out of people because that's always worked so well in the past!
> This play tries to create a discussion where no discussion is needed.
Translation: This play tries to create a discussion where x 7 doesn't *want* a discussion to happen, so he goes for the simple categorical "won't someone think of the children" argument.
For his interest and edification, I give him the Paedofinder General...
... this will have the Daily Mail brigade up in arms because, to them, there's no difference between fantasy and reality.
For the same reason, anyone who goes to see films from the Saw series is clearly a repressed psychopath and Agatha Christie was a potential mass murderer who lived out her fantasies in print.
And whilst we're at it, let's burn all copies of Viktor Nabakov's Lolita and...
I was expecting something that looked like a Face Hugger...!
"...but not as we know it."
Such a shame we've just lost Leonard Nimoy :-(
We need a new form of Godwin's law...
Inserting! Exclamation! Marks! After! Every! Word! In! The! Headline! Of! Any! Story! That! Mentions! Yahoo!
> I seem to recall that they initially released that to gold badge people, but then rolled it out to all badgers. And you obviously are a silver badger. Maybe they implemented it when they did the badges a few years ago, and forgot about it?
I have no idea. TBH I don't even notice the badges these days and they'll probably vanish sometime in the future when El Reg decides that the "flat" theme is passe'
> El Reg do provide a block user facility. By every username on the forums is a stripy sad face. It's between their name, and their badge (if they have one). You simply click on that, and their posts disappear.
Erm, I've never seen that, in fact, just to check it wasn't getting blocked by something I'd added to Firefox, I've just tried logging in using Chrome and I still don't see it...
Stopping Anonymous Coward posts on El Reg won't prevent this sort of thing because some of the worst (well, most tedious) trolls post under what is, presumably, a real name or a pseudonym (remember Eadon?!)
What would be useful is for El Reg to provide a "block user" facility, then you could ignore them completely.
The problem is that the Media (gawdblessem) have jumped on this new word (like they did with "hacking") and have decided it's anything to do with saying nasty things to people online, which it isn't.
Trolling is what, for instance, Clarkson does. He says something inflammatory, then as people say "he shouldn't be allowed to say that" and others go "he's only joking/ got a right to express his opinions" etc, stands back and laughs smugly because he's got people to take his bait.
This is childish and petty, but it's not the sort of bullying/ stalking behaviour that's being referred to.
I can just see the Daily Mail headline now:
"Online news site's users out for blood!"
Dude, as I said, you repeated it.
And just because the people in charge of the people who want to spy on all of us "for our protection" say "oh yes, certainly, fine, that's all legal and dandy" doesn't justify it or make it right.
But never mind, keep the blinkers on and enjoy the Bread and Circuses, after all you have nothing to hide, do you? (I bet you don't even have curtains...)
1) You may not have started the rumour, but you're happy to spread it without any evidence or proof.
2) I do understand that the "solution" that our Leaders have tried (repeatedly) is the wrong one. Just saying that something is "the lesser of two evils" is a cop-out. Bringing in the atomic bombs used on Japan is not relevant.
3) You are the one that doesn't get it. The snooping is not illegal because TPTB have written (or re-written) the laws to make it legal. That doesn't make it right.
Oh and 4) I don't accept freeware from Google. I use NoScript, I use AdBlock, I opt out of the NHS data grabs etc etc etc.
> Rumor has it he was FSB.
Really? Got any evidence to back that up?
I've heard a rumour that he was FSM (praise his noodly appendages!)
> trouble is that Snowden like Manning don't understand why secrets are kept. In truth they are done to protect you. Yes, you.
Yes, IMG, keep drinking the Kool Aid. Remember the Government and the Security Services should have the right and the ability to snoop on everything you and we do and say and read and think because only then can we be protected from Terrorists and Drug Dealers and Paedophiles (oh my!)
And even better, such snooping should be opaque and hidden behind closed doors and not subject to any scrutiny or oversight by our elected representatives because only then can our rights and liberties be protected!!
US administration standard operating procedure.
See TTIP for the worst example of this so far...
And, of course, paedophiles will use them for spying on kids' playgrounds and drug dealers will use them to deliver their packets of smack and...
> How else could you televise cricket?
IIRC Sky stick a single advert between overs.
Which is fine if you're listening to the FREE commentary on BBC's Test Match Special...
Or "O Brad" for short...
... J.A.N.E.T I love you so!
... rectangular Black Monoliths in the vicinity?
... a tragedy happens and TPTB use it as an excuse to get even more powers to monitor what we do and what we say and where we go and who we talk to and tell us that "it's for your own protection".
Je suis Charlie? Je suis Hypocrite more like it.
See title for details.
"...there will be further individuals who are arrested, charged and prosecuted unnecessarily under these laws..."
"Oh goody", said Theresa May, the Police and the Security Services, "more laws we can abuse to give ourselves even greater control over the masses!"
Yes, Tim, why don't you look at their wage bills.
And I don't mean just the wages paid to a bunch of over-priced prima-donnas poncing around on a pitch once a week, then snorting coke, knocking back booze and shagging girls who may not have consented, but the wages paid to everyone else.
Or do you think, as Richard Scudamore (the chief of the Premier League) seems to think that it isn't the clubs’ responsibility to ensure that their staff are paid living wage despite them getting £5.14 BILLION from Sky and BT and that it should be up to the Government to raise the Minimum Wage instead?
> Betty gets more than £1m A WEEK,
And the US Presidency costs their country over $1 BILLION a year!
How much would a President Tony or a President Maggie cost the country?
Wasn't it on Mock the Week that someone commented that Basil Brush was the only 70's childrens TV star that it was still safe to talk about?
But what if someone uses it to write a virus...?
Well isn't that nice!
And if you don't appeal, they can presume that you're guilty!