"the most dangerous people that are abusing the internet"
Yes, they have names like NSA, GCHQ and the like...
6212 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Yes, they have names like NSA, GCHQ and the like...
Brings a whole new meaning to Blue Screen of Death...
Oops, make that a *Red* Screen of Death!
So, no change there...
"Yeah, there's your problem, Guv, these dipole circuits are always a bit dodgy and it looks like you've had some right cowboys in here.
[Sucks air through teeth]
"I can fix it, but it's going to cost you..."
Damn them! The evil one seems to have failed to grow a beard...
... there's nothing to stop me or anyone else registering xyzname-sucks.net or .org or .com or whatever and getting it at a sensible price, rather than a stupid one.
Brian of Nazareth: "You're all individuals!"
Crowd: "Yes, we are all individuals!"
Man in Crowd: "Err, I'm not..."
- Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Well, yes, it was *only* £185 million, that's what's called "a success"...!
... Mr Pot calling...
... once the "official" powers are under control, it will be time to bring the "unofficial" ones under proper scrutiny and stop them using get-outs like "if you keep using our service we can do what the hell we like with your data and there's nothing you can do to stop us"...
> Who uses their real name etc on forums anyway?
I just ensure that whatever I post is stuff that I have no problem with others reading. If I would have a problem, I don't post it.
I do (like everyone else) have things to hide, so I don't put them in public places.
> an average of 94.2 seconds
Wow! So I get an extra minute and a half of gameplay before I have to quit or throw up?
... when you need him?
"... It's just not fast or convenient."
For whom, Zuck?
Personally I think that *most* people would prefer to call a business and speak to a human being who can (possibly) at least apply some intelligence, rather than have to deal with a useless "click on one of these pre-defined links which don't do anything to address your problem or are barely relevant to the situation" piece of nonsense which will end up with you running around in circles like a hamster in a wheel.
Ok, often when you do phone you'll get through to a call centre drone who will be clicking on the same pointless links, but at least you have the chance of escalating matters to someone who has more than a couple of braincells to rub together and may actually be able to do something useful.
> And the kids get to learn the importance of installing malware just before the exams, giving them more time to
... of intelligent driving.
"But Constable, I couldn't have been speeding because my car has this clever feature!"
"Were you looking at your speedometer, Sir?"
"Well, no, because my car has this clever feature..."
Or, of course, there's this story about Drivers caught by fake 40mph Speed Limit Signs
PS El Reg, you don't have to be a "petrolhead" to understand that it is *inappropriate* speed for the conditions that is the real danger, so this system will still let you do the National Limit on a road that is wet, dark, socked in by fog, full of traffic etc, which is entirely legal, but incredibly stupid.
We need to *educate* drivers better, not take the decision making process away from them.
> According to this very rag we're reading
Erm, no, that's according to Tim Worstall who is quite happy for big corporations to game the system and say it's ok because "that's what the law says" and they're "just maximising profits for shareholders".
I agree that the politicos shouldn't have made laws like that, but, ask yourself this: Who encouraged them to do this? Cui bono...?
... and we'll think about it...
And you can play by the terrorists rules too (they shout "Boo!" we jump and remove even more of our freedoms), but don't expect the rest of us to be so stupid or naiive.
Ah, the good old "You're either with us or against us" argument.
(Again, are we still talking about the terrorists here?)
"...whose commitment to the cause is strong enough" etc etc
Nor in the UK or most anywhere else, I don't doubt. But that's still not going to stop our fearless leaders deciding that the Security Services need even more powers to monitor us and control us and check up on what we're reading and who we're talking to and what we're looking at and...
PS I recently travelled by air and I was not at all, in any way, shape or form, counting the number of simple ways of bypassing the Security Theatre BS that is supposed to "protect" us (or, at least, make us think that our leaders are "doing something" about the problems which their actions have caused...) that I could see without even bothering to put my mind to it...
*cough* seven *cough*
Of course you have to make sure that there are no mirrors in the office so the manager can't see the pointy hair attachments on the top of his bot...
Gullible idiots got caught up in the excitement in the first flurry after these were released, then realised that they were a waste of money and simply designed to make ICANN bosses' bonuses bigger.
The only winning move is not to play...
I was just wondering whose arse they pulled that figure out of...
> I thought being warm wasn't going to be the problem?
Note the bracketted (!) after warm, implying irony...
> This isn't an argument about whether we should be doing something about climate change (see my support for a carbon tax). It's an argument about whether these campaigners have understood the economics of the thing they're trying to campaign upon.
Congratulations, Tim, you have pointed out that they have incorrectly re-arranged the deckchairs on the Titanic! I'm sure that makes you feel *so* much better and will keep you warm(!) as the ship sinks...
> The part where you claimed the Graun is deliberately and flagrantly lying in an attempt to shift the market price.
Are you sure you're talking to the right person here?
> Toned down by the subs (probably wisely) on the grounds that it was truly insulting and most rude.
Right, thanks for making it clear that you can't put together a good argument *without* calling people names.
> you really have missed what I've said about climate change around the place, haven't you? [...] That it's not actually a problem that the market unadorned can solve
Well, you're right that "markets place very little value on things beyond the near future", but when someone suggests actually *using* market forces to influence that behaviour, somehow you don't like that because they use an "inappropriate discount rate", not whether it's a good idea or not.
> You appear to be accusing the Graun of deliberate (and illegal) price manipulation.
I do? Please can you point out the part of my post which caused you to draw this fantastic conclusion?
... another piece of TW "journalism" that relies on cherry-picking bits of a story for one more round of Lefty-Bashing.
We start off with a classic "if you don't know what I (claim to) know, then you're not allowed to have an opinion" and assertions of "ignorance" there and then throw in a bit of name-calling and ad hominem attacks ("dunderheads"? "Crayon eating", Tim? Really, is that the best you can come up with?) and we get a classic piece of Worstall trolling.
Naturally TW ignores where the piece says "The intention is not to bankrupt the companies, nor to promote overnight withdrawal from fossil fuels – that would not be possible or desirable" and "Divestment serves to delegitimise the business models of companies that are using investors’ money to search for yet more coal, oil and gas that can’t safely be burned. It is a small but crucial step in the economic transition away from a global economy run on fossil fuels" because they don't fit in with his agenda of telling us how wonderful the Market is for solving all the world's problems (as if it hadn't got us into them in the first place...)
... the vast majority of those who end up being unable to vote wouldn't have voted Tory in any case, so as far as the Cabinet Office are concerned, there's no problem there...
> Is it too cynical to wonder that these enquiries are being publicised partly to counter the leaks about cover-ups of sex crimes?
I think the answer to that is a definite "No, it's definitely not too cynical".
"...since Operation Ore back in 2002"
And we all know just how well *that* turned out, don't we?
How many people this time will be told "say you're guilty and you'll get a Caution so we can tick off another 'success' in our book or we'll drag you through the Courts and give your name to the media, so even when you're found Not Guilty your reputation and career will still be destroyed"?
... "pour encourage les autres" in Swedish?
Oh, just like in the US and the UK you don't shoot the guy whose failed in their responsibility to make sure the system was secure in the first place, you punish the guy who demonstrated the problem because nobody would listen.
... can they get it to go up to 11?
... noodly appendages there?
As opposed to the poison of legal drugs such as nicotine and alcohol?
"... but that doesn't mean we'll not be pushing ahead with it, just that we won't be telling you about it..."
... icann.sucks ?
"...prior to being put on Twitter, it may not be a violation of this policy"
So if it's already been on a revenge porn site elsewhere, that's ok with Twitter???
... .scam .ripoff .cashingin and, of course, .icannsmegabonusplan
What's dodgy about it? Pterry even asked for a signed copy of my catalogue!!
(Where do you think he got the idea for that cupboard full of "interesting" toys in Making Money?!)
> he never once bought a round.
He never needed to, people at Discworld Cons were practically queueing up to buy him drinks!
- Affordable Graham :-/
Is this a mistake, because, if not, two things come to mind:
1) Did nobody from their phone operating compay *notice* this?
2) Based on those figures, they would call the entire population of the country in a fortnight at most.
Now I know some people get multiple calls a day, but even so, it seems an astonishingly large figure.
Hazel Blears said that it's not mass surveillance because the Security Services do not have the ability to monitor everyone's e-mails, web traffic, tweets and so on.
What she did *NOT* say is whether they *would like* to be able to do this and have it on their wish-lists for when the technology improves so that they can!
And we will tell you what is "illicit content" in a list that will only ever grow longer and longer...