I've got a little list...
... which is only going to get longer and longer...
6840 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... which is only going to get longer and longer...
... clearly the authorities are going to try to ban this forthwith since it could stop the Security Services from
spying on protecting everyone!
"Time flies by when you're the driver of a train.
"Steaming into Trumpton with a carog of cocaine."
No, what the court is saying is that they don't want to have to deal with these cases, full stop and they're going to do their damndest to ensure that none is ever heard.
If you look at the history of their actions, this is nothing new.
... it was a stupid question.
Some people are going to believe whatever they read, no matter how "hateful" or ludicrous it is, trying to suppress it will only make matters worse since clearly we are "scared" of the "truth" of it.
"...does not belong the realms of possibility"
I suggest you ask some of the American Robber Barons of the late 19th century who were quite happy to screw the little people in all sorts of ways that were questionably legal at best, then put the proceeds towards philanthropic projects to salve their consciences.
... until it leaves a couple of gears inside someone...
> free trade is one of the Tory Parties 4 pillars/beliefs
Yes, free of all those tiresome restrictions on environmental damage and consumer protections and corporate responsibility and anything else that would get in the way of the owners making lots more money by screwing the rest of us.
> Freedom of Speech
ITYM "Freedom to say and do things that we approve of, but not otherwise".
Remember this quote from David Cameron: "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone"...?
> The Union
But not the Trade Union, unless you think that it's reasonable for strike ballots to consider that every person who didn't vote is a vote against strike action. (What percentage of the electorate *didn't* vote for the Tories...?)
> Small government
A "small government" which has voted itself a big pay rise whilst forcing austerity on the rest of us? One that is pi$$ing away huge amounts of public money on failing projects like Universal Credit? One that has flogged off the family silver and is now getting rid of the furniture in a desperate attempt to reduce the huge amount it's having to borrow, even though they claimed they'd have got rid of the deficit by last year?
Oh, BTW, I'm not anti-Tory, I'm anti- any entitled political idiots who desperately cling to failed policies whilst blaming the poorest in society for said failures.
> Looks like trade deals will be much quicker once we're out.
Of course, because the Tories will say "Yes, we'd love to dismantle all our environmental and consumer and worker protection regulations, which will make us all richer (after all, nobody will be poor, or, at least, nobody worth speaking of) since there's no pesky EU to stop us from doing it any more. Then we dump the Human Rights Act and make sure that the only people have Rights and Liberties are the ones we like... Trebles all round!"
"He says he doesn't want any more powers."
"He says he doesn't need them."
"Then why did he take the job in the first place...?"
"Buggered if I know..."
Not the "Fonzie" system?
Mine's the leather jacket...
... passing a law that prosecutes dumb executives for putting flashy bells and whistles and other nonsense, such as allowing your car's software to be altered remotely, over simple basic bloody security?!
Two more words:
My calculator makes it 58008618
> until some hacker opens the doors whilst I'm on the motorway withe the kids in the back.
So there are some positive benefits, then...?
> Ah you think there were only 2 parties to choose from?
No, I think that if one party gets 37% of the votes, it means that 63% of the voters DID NOT want that party in power.
In other words, a MAJORITY of people didn't vote for them, so how did they get over 50% of the seats?
I hope this helps you understand how fundamentally broken our system is.
>> "I'm sorry - but 37% is not a majority."
> Yes it is.
This is obviously some strange definition of the word "majority" that I wasn't previously aware of, so perhaps you could do some more "simple math" and explain to us how 37% of the votes gets over 50% (a "majority") of the seats?
At least Euro MPs are voted in by a proportional system such that they get a number of seats which is representative of the the number of people who actually support them.
> Do we elect who runs the country? Yes = out, no = in.
Remind me again: What percentage of the votes did the Tories get which gave them a "majority" in Parliament?
> Second pic, after Servlan
I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed...
1) All of them.
No, just a moment...
2) We just redefined the word "spying", so now it's none of them.
Happy to help :-)
Paging Mr Pot, please contact Mr Kettle..
> let's say you think that men are men and women are women. This used to be known as "logic" and "reason", now it's "transphobia" (the PC Police love to misappropriate scientific sounding words as it gives them an air of authority). That's the labeling.
> The shaming usually takes place in a loud manner, in public to humiliate and intimidate you into silence
That would be the sort of shaming that results in bigotted States passing anti-LGBT laws because you should be happy how some magical sky fairy made you and if he gave you *that* set of genitals then you MUST use that public toilet?
Or maybe it's the sort that a trans friend of mine experienced earlier today when, whilst she was minding her own business walking to work, some moron decided to cross the road and shout abuse in her face about how she was some sort of deviant and pervert and shouldn't be out on the streets?
Odd, I don't recall Hillary ever suggesting that people engage in this sort of behaviour...
Oh and as for that video, from a bunch of narrow-minded hetero-normative bigots who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives goes and talks to a selection of rational, sensible students whose attitude is "it's your life, it's your choice, I don't have a problem" and tries (laughably) to imply that it is the "College kids" who are "saying the darndest things".
The presenter says "What does that say about our culture?" Well, I think it says that, despite his narrow minded attitude, it's good to see that there are at least some who are willing to look past their prejudices and let people live their lives their way because it's doing no harm to anyone else.
> Your "reasoning" is like
Oh deary, deary me, FF22 and you were complaining (incorrectly) about *me* using fallacious arguments!
(You could, of course, also look up the definition of what "theft" actually is, but that's by-the-by...)
> the reason why I'm saying what I'm saying is completely irrelevant
Is it? Ok, FF22, you tell us *why* this *ONE* particular issue is so important to you.
As I said, out of (what was, at the time) just 86 posts since 2013, a large proportion of them have been about the blocking of adverts, so why this and nothing else? Why are you putting so much time into attacking Alexander Hanff? I, for one, would like to know.
> if what I'm saying is not factual and makes no sense, you could obviously still rather easily point that out, and expose the logical and factual flaws in my comments. But you didn't and don't do that.
No, I haven't and I'm not going to because others are doing that and comprehensively and repeatedly demolishing your arguments, but you are simply not willing to accept even the possibility that you could be wrong.
So, again, I ask *WHY* this one particular issue is such a big deal for you.
Now are you going to answer that, or are you just going to try to move the goalposts again and attack me for pointing out your fallacies instead?
Thank you for telling me about logical fallacies (which I'm *well* aware of)
However when you look at someone's El Reg list of posts and find that, since they joined the Forums on the 9th of October 2013, they have posted a grand total of 86 posts, a goodly proportion of which relate to the use of ad blockers and some of which contain such ludicrous comments like this one...
"Theft is theft, no matter what your reasons for doing it are. And using web services and consuming content without "paying" for them by tolerating ads IS also theft."
... it is neither a loaded question, nor an ad hominem attack to wonder whether the poster who doth protest too much is doing so because he's worrying about his job disappearing.
So if you *don't* work for an advert pusher, *WHY* are you getting so uptight about people using ad blockers or why it is that it seems that everyone else apart from FF22 considers that they way these ad-block-blockers work is illegal?
Please, let's have some full disclosure here.
Tell us, which advert pusher do you work for?
... you'll never believe what happened next...
"In an act of typical Whitehall hubris..."
Government consultations are *only* organised in order to get the responses they want and any others will be ignored, cf John Whittingdale claiming that "all" the replies to their consultation on the BBC's future had been read, except that the Radio Times sent in a USB stick with over 6,000 responses which was *password protected* so the responses could not have been read without the password, yet the Government never asked for it...
... 1... 2... 3.... 4...
(Remind me to change the combination on my luggage!)
Of course not. It's their ball and it's their back yard and *they* make the rules!
She's just lucky she hasn't suffered an unfortunate "accident"...
But was that before someone blew it for them?
At least this way they get to have some control over the way the story goes.
"We're allowed to have them, you aren't"
Signed - Your Government
... our UK Government wants to flog off all our medical data (which is "anonymised", honest, plebs, would we lie to you?) to their mates in the insurance and private healthcare industries, but it will be safe, we've said so, so don't worry your pretty little heads about it...
Here's a perfect example to test it on: Martin Lews (moneysavingexpert.com) ripping George Osborne apart because Gideon stole the title "Living Wage" and redefined it to be something which *isn't* the Living Wage...
They *really* didn't see this coming? It's not as if there haven't been plenty of examples of this...
... Extra-galactic neutrino. Ah-ha-ha-haaa!
Mine's the cape...
... I do not think it means what you think it means...
"...has space for eight million books, and has an 11-floor reading room."
And hopefully a better fire suppression system than the original...
... people will be paying the writers of Ad Blocking software to let their rubbish through (along with any associated malware...)
... Howard Wolowitz...
... but how many of the people named are actually going to face any sort of criminal charges?
They will no doubt say "Well, it was legal under the tax laws of my country" without saying "of course those laws were written and/or voted in by *other* people on the list..."
One law for us, another one for them.
How do you say "Pour encourager les autres" in Romanian?
And Yag goes for the desperate "It was a joke, didn't you get it" tactic.
(Hopefully followed by "When you're in a hole, stop digging...")
> Politicians are, in theory, accountable to the general public.
Yes, in theory. However the fact of the matter is that in the USA they're pretty much bought and paid for by big businesses.
As the old saying has it: If voting could actually change anything, they'd ban it.
Remember: An honest politician is one who *stays* bought...
> Absurd?! This is the future. Get with it!
Twenty minutes into the future...
Janie Crane: "An off switch?"
Metrocop: "She'll get years for that. Off switches are illegal!"
- Max Headroom - Episode 1.6 "The Blanks"