"You appear to...
"... be having a wank.
"Would you like to buy a porn movie?"
5532 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"... be having a wank.
"Would you like to buy a porn movie?"
> Compelling either party to engage against their will is only counterproductive.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
But it's better to at least try to do something like this which has a chance of making a difference, rather than the "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality which has been shown to be an utter failure.
> Well you don't tend to get repeat offenders...
An argument which ultimately leads to Judge Death from the Judge Dredd stories...
Whilst we're at it, why don't we just bring back hanging for Robbery, Burglary, Shoplifting, Pick Pocketing etc as prescribed in The Bloody Code
After all, that worked so well in the past that it virtually completely eliminated crime when it was in operation, didn't it...?
"Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it." - George Satayana.
The greatest trick the main two political parties pulled is convincing Corporate America that they are the only two options
Well, yes. Because the ones with the brains and the ideas are not making it to the top and the ones at the top are too busy awarding themselves massive bonuses and getting their bought-and-paid-for cronies in Government to say "that's fine, because they're providing lots of (zero hours and minimum wage) jobs which make it look as if we're helping the country instead of ham-stringing it and besides, when we stop being MPs we're in line for a nice lucrative directorship..."
Curious, they've never complained to me...
... is just too much hassle to bother with, isn't it?
People who are up to no good in their homes such as domestic abusers and child molesters do so with the curtains pulled.
Do you pull your curtains? Why? What have you got to hide???
> This is a situation perpetuated by the agencies themselves
Well, yes. How many times in history has a security agency said "Ok, we've done our job, we're going to close the agency and take early retirement now"?
It is in their interest for there to be plots and if there aren't, they're sure going to find some...
... un Hypocrite!
Buffer free? Perhaps.
High Quality? You can't polish a turd!
(Yes, ok, I know Mythbusters did, but WTH ;-) )
Perhaps they could come up with some way for gay people to be easily identifiable, say a pink triangle sewn on to the clothing?
(Can you pre-emptively Godwin an entire El Reg comments thread...? ;-) )
... How to nail jelly to the ceiling!
Shoving unwanted ads into people's browser windows is Google's job!
I'm sensing a certain irony here...
What a pointless article as TW again takes a trivial issue (not the nuclear spill, the organic kitty litter) and builds a mountain out of a molehill so he can have a go at lefties and hippies and organic products and anyone else who doesn't fit in with his idea of how the world should be run.
The Nat West (owned by RBOS) online banking and commercial cards sites claim to be available "Anywhere, anytime".
Well, yes, apart from when you get a message saying "there's been an error, try later". What it actually means is they're doing site updates or maintenance, but they don't tell you that.
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...
... 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".