... but I've just been told that a new law has been rushed through making packet counting illegal...
6823 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... but I've just been told that a new law has been rushed through making packet counting illegal...
... I SAID: WHAT A SHAME!
NO, NOT TRAIN... SHAME...!!!
I would have upvoted you had you not decided to play the Race Card implying only certain "ethnic groups" would do this.
"...and invading the privacy of American citizens [and everyone else] is not OK."
... if it's not us doing it...
... get back
I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
ORLY? Generalising from your own experiences and behaviour there, TW?
Yes, *some* consumers will "bugger off elsewhere", but a lot more, because they don't know they're being screwed over or find "everything under one roof" to be more convenient or not being willing to accept that they're being screwed over or whatever will not.
In the mean time the verb "to google" has entered the language and the (false) idea that their results are impartial and aimed solely at getting the best results for the consumer gives a powerful drag factor on any change, so they will keep their monopoly for a very long time unless those pesky governments try to ensure that people *really* have a choice.
TW does rather seem to be missing the point, doesn't he?
In other words: "Do what *we* like, or else!"
It's gratifying to see that at least one of El Reg's writers knows the difference between Refuting, Rejecting and Rebutting an argument!
> your right to privacy when using the phone you just stole from me is trumped all day long by my right to have you caught for the robbery and my phone retrieved. It just is.
But this case *isn't* about a phone being stolen, it's about the Police very probably using illegal methods to snoop on phones in the same way that GCHQ and NSA want to snoop on what everyone does online in the hope that, in the massive haystack of data they collect, there may be a needle.
Yes, in certain *specified* situations, the Police have been given exemptions from certain laws, but, for instance, they can only speed when it's an emergency situation and they're using lights and sirens, not any time they just feel like it.
These exemptions, however do not "override" the law, nor do they have the right or the power to decide what the law is or isn't just depending on how inconvenient it may be and I, for one, want it to stay that way because I don't want us to live in a Police State.
Or just rejected?
I see no refutatation in this article, just a statement that "there have been exhaustive investigations which have not found any evidence of systemic problems with the Horizon system", but given the allegation that there is evidence the Post Office "has been withholding from Second Sight", this doesn't contradict the assertion that the Horizon system has faults.
... just how effective the "War on Drugs" is, because people have not and would not switch to other substances to get high and even if they did, we'd just ban them and *that* would make the situation better...
Please, hyperbole much? The BNP or anyone other minority party won't be "ruling the country" but to suggest that some people "SHOULD NOT" be represented simply pisses all over the idea of a representative democracy (even more than FPTP does!) and ends up with the situation in certain parts of the world where only "approved" candidates are allowed to stand.
And if you think that the Lib Dems are the only ones who engaged in "nasty, power-grabbing politics and the dirtiest possible election campaigns", you really need to take a better look at electoral campaigns in the past (Hint: New Labour - New Danger for one)
Promises from [Insert Party Leader's name here]? (oi, stop laughing)
What people are saying is that we want a government which represents how *we* voted, rather than the one that we get with our incredibly broken First Past The Post system.
I invite you to consider the Blair government that got a majority in Parliament despite only getting 34% of the votes. I then invite you to consider what it's like to live in a "safe seat" where Party X can parachute anyone they like in to be your MP knowing that the people there would vote for a donkey with the right coloured rosette on it and if you vote for someone else it's a waste of time. Finally try considering the fact that a lot of the electioneering at the moment has been on the lines of "if you vote for X, you'll get Y..."
It doesn't matter whether it's the Lib Dems, the Greens, the Monster Raving Loony Party or even (gods forbid!) UKIP, the fact is that if 10% of the population vote for them, that 10% should be represented in our Parliament or, if not, we could have the House of Lords elected on that proportional basis.
It is my hope that this election will be the last one which is carried out under a system which only benefits the Tories and Labour whilst ensuring that almost nobody else can get a look in and, instead, we get a Parliament which means that if a Party wants to pass the Snoopers Charter or the Bedroom Tax or any other such piece of nonsense, they'll actually have to *convince* others of the value and validity of such legislation, rather than simply bulldozing it through with a sneer because they have a "majority".
What a wonderful rant! Pity you miss the point entirely.
Consider this: If someone invaded your country (even, or especially, under the guise of "helping" you), tried to tell your countryfolk how to live their lives, elect their leaders (prefereably from their chosen
shills candidates) and generally pissed all over your lifestyles and traditions, what would you do? Would you capitulate or fight back?
The answer to that is pretty obvious, of course, so now consider what would happen if the invaders started trying to kill off anyone who opposed them (with, of course, attendant "collateral damage") using drones to wipe out a whole area of housing just in case there was a terrorist there and having helicopter gunships shoot up people by mistake.
I think that, if that happened, even those who might have had more moderate, even (who knows) those bleeding heart liberals might consider taking up arms to fight off these interlopers etc.
Would you say that that would be a reasonable assessment of what would happen, yes?
SO WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S ANY FUCKING DIFFERENT FOR PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN OR THE MIDDLE EAST OR AFRICA OR ANY FUCKING OTHER PLACE IN THE FUCKING WORLD???
Shooting the shit out of anyone you don't like is NOT going to make the problem any better, it just drives more people into the arms of the militants and terrorists because the people see that as a better option than just capitulating. "They may be bastards, but at least they're *our* bastards"!
"Kill all the people who don't agree with us!" is the cry. But is that them or is that you?
> the real task is to solve the unrest problems in Africa [...] The world would be a better place if groups like the Congolese rebels and Boko Haram were wiped from the earth.
What a *BRILLIANT* solution! Why on earth did nobody think of trying that sort of thing before in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan or...
... oh you know the rest...
Something that *can* run Crysis!
> the tyrannical moral censor that I anticipated has failed to appear
Or has it simply not appeared in an obvious guise?
I fully accept that action needs to be taken against those who commit child abuse and who post such pictures online, but, as Larry F54 says, how many false positives were there?
Given the sort of Moral Panic that surrounds such things, I wouldn't doubt that there have been the equivalents of the album cover or pictures of children in the bath or on the beach which have been caught up in this, all of which have undoubtedly been included in that headline grabbing figure.
> As for the "spoilt vote" idea, unfortunately there's no way to tell the difference between that and stupidity.
"Stupidity" is your word. I used the word "apathy".
There's a difference.
And even if there was a massive no-show (like when Blair got a "majority" with 34% of a 60% turnout) it wouldn't matter, because whoever got in would still declare that they had a mandate to do what they liked.
The only way to get their attention is to either a) spoil your paper or b) vote for a "minor" party (ie not LibLabCon) and demonstrate just how broken our First Past the Post system is.
> what if voting meant filling in a questionnaire covering lots of different (divisive) issues, and the results were mapped to the closest matching party?
As for the "don't vote" idea, unfortunately there's no way to tell the difference between that and apathy. At the very least, show up to spoil your ballot paper to register your protest, otherwise you end up with the nonsense of the Police and Crime Commissioners' election where some got in with less than 15% of the votes.
> If I'm not interesting, why do they want to look at my stuff?
Well obviously the AC agrees with the Police and Security Services that you *might* do something, so it's far better to keep an eye on you "just in case" than risk missing spotting you being a naughty boy!
Oh good grief, do people *still* believe this sort of nonsense?
Dear AC, you stand much more chance of being killed in a traffic accident or even getting out of bed than you do of ever being the victim of a terrorist attack. And we're all *so* glad that you have so little to hide that you are not only willing to forego *your* privacy, but everyone else's too!
Please try to understand that we (mostly) have *no* problem with the Security Services doing their job in a targeted manner, what we object to is them treating *everyone* as a potential suspect and acting as if they have a better chance of finding a needle in a haystack by making the haystack so much bigger.
PS If you "have nothing to hide" why are you posting anonymously...?
... before some NSA/ GCHQ shill proposes a law to make this illegal...?
> You can always use AB+ to kill it.
Yes, I know, I did that for the incredibly stupid and annoying "dancing Jesus" one they came up with a while back, but the point is I shouldn't *need* to if El Reg bothered with making their site user friendly.
And that includes getting rid of the ridiculously massive image at the top of each page which often has virtually no relevance to the story it's referring to...
... It is possible to set .gif images to loop a set number of times eg 5 or 10 rather than just "loop forever".
... God help you!
Better than 10 Moby Dicks...
Not... *rounded* corners...?
We are supposed to vote for someone to represent *us* in Parliament. Unfortunately we usually get someone who will just do what their Party Whips tell them to do :-(
Ah, but those nice Waltons have just generously increased the wages of the
peons workers to bring them *above* the American Minimum Wage for the first time since the Banking Crisis.
The fact that that represents about 1% of their annual revenue (not the 1% that usually gets talked about!) and that, of course, during that time, the Waltons didn't have problems putting food on the table makes no odds...
... isn't THAT a surprise, boys and girls?!
> Basically it means being so drunk you're staggering about recklessly causing a hazard to yourself or the general public or passed out in the streets. No, can't say I've ever done that
There's an awful lot of Brits who (regrettably) have done so.
If the Police spent all their time nicking and charging them all they'd never catch any other criminals (there's some other cynical comments I could add here...!)
> 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.
... it was Mondas...
"... does not meet the requirements for legally valid consent,"
Really? But how can "If you use our system we can do what the hell we like" *ever* be considered to be unacceptable...?
Curious, they've never complained to me...
Hey, if it's good enough for the US Government...
... the implementation will be one that we can all Share and Enjoy!
"... be having a wank.
"Would you like to buy a porn movie?"
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..."