4743 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
@Gray Ham - Re: Known this for years ...
Or the bats have taken one look and thought "Jeez, if those are the moth's balls, how big is the bloody moth?!"
Re: The laws of physics do NOT change in different places.
Time for one of my favourite quotes:
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' - Isaac Asimov
taken down [...] Ecuadorian tourism site
Wow! I can hear the world quaking in its boots...
... or, at least, Playmobil!
Statute of Limitations...?
There should be a limit to the time after the filing of a patent that the holder has a right to lodge a claim infringement.
Or are Boston U really saying "We didn't know that our patent was being infringed for the last decade"?
... popcorn icon...?
@Rampant Spaniel - Re: More to come?
You must be going senile, there were no Nazi leaders, it was just Ron Vibbentrop, Heinrich Bimmler and that nice Mr Hilter...
Can you show me where the baked beans are?
By your command!
Are you bored...?
No, I'm TRYING TO GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP and the LAST THING I NEED is SOME STUPID PRICK THINKING THIS IS GOOD TIME TO TRY TO SELL ME SOME SHIT!
Re: Opera's adherance to standards broke sites...
"seems like I'll be a Firefox user"
Be careful before you say that, v22.0 of Firefox appears to have broken cut and paste! (It's very hit and miss as to whether it works or not)
I've also had an instance of a Captcha repeatedly telling me that I didn't enter any data in the box (when, obviously, I did), so something certainly seems to have screwed up somewhere...
"designed to protect America"
I'm pretty sure that that was what the KGB and the Stasi et al thought they were doing for their countries...
Re: Dick Tracy!!
"Six-two and even, over and out"
Can I trademark...
BBC "reality" TV show The Apprentice is totally rubbish
You could have put the full stop after "rubbish" and not bothered with the rest of the article!
@AC Re: Actually...the non-issue (IMO) is exactly what Obama wanted..
Oh dear. In case you hadn't noticed, Atlas Shrugged is *FICTION*!!!
It's easy when writing fiction to get things happen the way you want them to because it's not what we call "real".
@Aoyagi Aichou - Re: And my friends wonder...
Looks at Ghostery, NoScript, Adblock Plus...
"The Search for More Money"
Can I just say....
"part of an international community and they should be abiding by international law"
Paging Mr Pott and Mr Kettle-Black...
Note these words...
"The UK is sitting on a cheap energy economic revolution comparable to the heyday of North Sea Oil, the British Geological Survey suggests.
"The Survey’s estimate of the potential gas reserves of the Bowland–Hodder shale formation - finally published today – indicate that using today’s technology, the rocks should yield 1,329 TCF (trillion cubic feet) or 37.7 TCM (37,631 BCM, or billion cubic metres) of gas."
There's a lot of conditional words there...
@Don Jefe - Re: It's the great leveler
It's a glitch with El Reg's comments system that I've seen in the past where, for some reason, it adds line-breaks instead of doing word wrapping.
Re: "fully within a legal framework"
"Do they operate in accordance with the law?"
They don't worry about it. Any time there's a problem, they'll just retroactively change it...
People of Earth, your attention please....
Paypal have just blocked our account after one of our transactions was queried.
Our invasion fleet will be arriving from hyperspace shortly....
... When will these be available to mount on fricken' sharks?
"opt out of viewing smut"
You mean as opposed to the requirement that some people want that you would have to contact your broadband provider and actively opt-in by saying "yes, please let me view the smut"?
The answer is, of course, "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it..."
Re: Best way to get rid of them
I can't find a link at the moment, but there's a clip (probably on youtube) of someone who responds to a cold caller by playing sound clips from Family Guy's Peter Griffin...
@AC "drug-addled Libertarian posts" was Re: Free marketeers ahoy
I don't smoke. I don't drink. I don't take drugs. I have no interest in the recreational use of substances that alter my perception etc and I am most certainly not "drug addled" in any way.
But if someone else wants to take these substances, why should they not be allowed to? More people die from tobacco related illnesses and accidents caused by drunk drivers than from illegal drugs. Legal drugs would, as has been pointed out many a time, allow the control of quality *and* permit Governments to raise tax on them, rather than pissing away huge amounts of money trying, as they have been for the last several decades to win an unwinnable "war on drugs".
"Tinfoil hatters who tape over webcams when they aren't in use"
Or sensible people who have webcams with a manual shutter that's only opened when they're actually using the webcam...
Re: Had the bog-standard phone scammer just last night
I like saying "Does your mother know what you do for a living? Do you say 'Hi, mum, I've got a job as a scammer and a thief and I like to con people out of money'? Do you think she'll be proud of you and say to her friends 'My child is a crook!'? Hello...? Helloooo.....!" :-)'
"it voluntarily chooses not to do so"
Oh well, *that's* alright then, isn't it, boys and girls? They say we can trust them and they should know...!
"The robot is thus naturally more autonomous."
"Ok, send the robot in to search the building."
"Err, I would, Sir, but it's currently having a nap in the sun on top of the truck..."
Re: @Scorchio!! @DrXym - Should be minimum sentencing guidelines for this sort of thing
Presuming that answer above was addressed to me, the problem with your "screed" is that you are arguing that *everyone* should be treated as a potential sexual offender and considered guilty unless they can prove their innocence. Therefore you fail by reversing the principles of Justice in this country and on the grounds of using the Precautionary Principle to demand that the government control what others can see based on the (alleged) threat posed by a tiny minority.
I note, by the way, the weasel words in your comments "The literature on paedophilia is very suggestive". So you fail on that as well because this is not conclusive, nor scientifically proven. And you also fail by appearing to assert the "gateway theory" that seeing this sort of thing will make them "move from one type of offence to another" with the implication that it causes people to abuse children. How many children have been abused by people who have *not* looked at child abuse images, let alone drawings from Manga etc? For that matter, how many people have seen the (now illegal) drawings which have been classed as "child pornography" and have *not* gone on to abuse children?
As for your anecdote about "one even set me up for assault", so what? Was that simply because he was a paedophile and didn't like you enforcing the rules? Is that sort of behaviour *exclusive* to paedophiles? I don't think so.
Finally you again use weasel words such as "excuse", "wriggle out", "barrack room lawyers" when you go back to your argument of Presumed Guilty by saying "there is always a matter of doubt amongst the barrack room lawyers". Well, yes, that's because that matter of doubt is the foundation of our entire Legal System, apart from child porn, it seems where an accusation is enough to cause people like you to assume guilt!
Yes, people who abuse children should be prosecuted. Yes, people who take photos or own photos of that abuse should be prosecuted. But we should *not* fall for the mentality that our Tabloid Media's agenda pushes whereby anything that looks even *vaguely* suspect in their entirely subjective opinion should be considered prima facie evidence that the possessor is a potential child abuser and therefore anything they don't like (even if it's an entirely fictional drawing) needs to be banned.
@Scorchio!! Re: @DrXym - Should be minimum sentencing guidelines for this sort of thing
I did not say that he didn't have images of penetrative sex, but if you'd actually bothered to *read* what had been written, instead of just letting your knee jerk, you'd have seen that I was responding to DrXym when he said "If you're caught with kiddy porn it should be a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years."
I pointed out that *drawings* were also classed as "kiddy porn" which, even though they are completely ficitious, would mean that someone who has such an image (or possibly even of the London Olympics 2012 logo which we all know shows Lisa Simpson giving Bart a blowjob!) would get his "mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years".
@DrXym - Re: Should be minimum sentencing guidelines for this sort of thing
>> "Define "kiddy porn"."
> I don't need to, the law does
Yes, like the law that gave use the "Dangerous Cartoons Act"
"From April 6th 2010 it will be illegal to possess ‘non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse’ in England and Wales. Thousands of fans of Japanese anime, hentai and graphic novels face a maximum three years imprisonment and a place on the Sex Offenders Register for possessing sexually themed cartoons."
NB This is *not* talking about how paedophiles used to trace over photographs of child abuse and then dispose of the original photo, thus claiming they were "only drawings" because that loophole was closed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
This is talking about entirely artificial and fictitious images, eg drawn or created with 3D modelling programs, which have never featured a real child or any actual abuse, but which are now illegal because "well it looks like a child and that's good enough for us".
"Does your organisation use any form of corporal punishment?"
I could recommend a couple of suppliers, but I'm sure those in power have their own chosen providers already...
Why? Because they no longer work for us...
In the USA and, increasingly, it seems, in the UK, many politicians (especially those at the top) are now bought and paid for by wealthy vested interests, either through campaign contributions or offering lucrative directorships to "help them decide" which way they and their party will vote.
The idea that casting a ballot once every few years gives you some influence on the process is, regrettably, laughable.
We did have the opportunity a couple of years ago to at least improve the system, but, once again, the wealthy vested interests came down on one side and decided that they didn't want us to have it, so we got a a referendum on a system that wasn't great (instead of a *choice* of what system to use) and one party that opposed, whilst another party simply wouldn't support it and we, the electorate, got screwed.
It's about time...
... Cyberpunk was doing this back in the 1980s!
--- Jacking out ---
Re: Just another World Heritage Site
And what happens when Salvage 1 lands to bring bits back to sell to collectors?
"owners will be notified if their luggage is tampered with or opened"
You mean when the TSA [They Steal Anything] decide to crowbar it open to have a rummage through it and see if you have any valuables in there?
Or, like happened to a guy I know whose backpack, with easily opened spring clips, arrived at the destination with the fastening straps cut because someone from the TSA was too stupid or lazy to figure out how to open the clips...
Hey Boss! Deplane! Deplane...!
Re: Wise move.
ITYM John Carter...
You don't find a needle in a haystack...
... by making the haystack bigger...
A sad loss...
... but maybe there's a GSV out there which used its Effector to copy his mind state... :-/
If censorship is the answer...
... it was a stupid question!
"There have been approximately 100 plots and also arrests made since 2009 by the FBI"
And how many convictions...?
There's nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting...
... and that was nothing like impartial and unbiased reporting.
Why not stick "Opinion" at the top of it, because that's really what it is...
And again: WHO DECIDES?
What is "harmful content on the internet"? What is "illegal pornographic content"?
Well thanks to Blair's Government, we have the Dangerous Pictures Act (aka Extreme Pornography legislation) which says that material which is legal in the rest of Europe and the USA, for example, is illegal in Britain because we are so weak-willed and lacking in conscience that we simply cannot be allowed to even see this material since we can't be trusted not to go out and do something nasty if we do!
So google et al are going to be required to implement the Great Firewall of Britain to block this stuff from anyone with a UK IP address according to a list which, presumably, our Mary Whitehouse Brigade gives to them, based on the MWB's criteria of "We don't like this, so *you* aren't allowed to see it!"
Won't someone think of the children (or should that be "won't someone treat the adults as children")!