5015 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
@Destroy All Monsters - Re: Always look on the bright side of stuff
> Am I bad?
If it's on the same computer/ on the same hard drive/ in My Documents/ in the same folder* as other porn (*delete depending on how paranoid you feel) and the Police reckon they can argue that you have those images "for the purposes of sexual arousal", then, yes.
@aBloke FromEarth - Re: Possessing an image likely to cause injury
> In fact (and I'd need to have a proper search for this sometime) there was a loose inverse correlation between access to porn and incidences of sexual violence.
Check out the work of Professor Milton Diamond of the University of Hawai'i
> But then again, when did politicians ever use facts to decide laws?
This was the last Labour regime who gave us "Policy Based Evidence Making". Unfortunately we're liable to get the same bunch of moralising clowns back into power after the next election :-(
Re: @ Graham Marsden
> Or are you advocating that people who actually fall asleep on the wheel should carry on driving at all cost untill they find a service area (or die trying?).
Now you've gone from a False Dilemma to a Straw Man argument...
No, of course I am not advocating that. I'm advocating *GET OFF THE BLOODY MOTORWAY IF YOU'RE TIRED AND FIND SOMEWHERE SAFE AND LEGAL TO STOP AND NAP!"
Servicer area, next junction whatever, just don't drive tired.
Re: @ElReg!comments!Pierre - Genuine reason.
I suggest you look up the fallacy of the False Dichotomy.
Sleeping when driving is stupid and illegal.
Sleeping on the hard shoulder is also stupid and illegal.
Sleeping at a service area is sensible and not illegal (even though officious private parking companies may try to fine you for doing it!)
@ElReg!comments!Pierre - Re: Genuine reason.
If someone is feeling sleepy, they should pull off at the next junction or service area and stop and get some sleep.
Doing it on the Hard Shoulder is not only illegal, but stupid because if another vehicle, let alone an artic happens to drift across...
@Steve the Cynic - Re: I'm not sure
> the right lane (the fast one)
You mean the Overtaking Lane?
Just as motorways have *two* overtaking lanes, the basic rule of the road being "Keep left unless overtaking" which is why idiots shouldn't hog the middle lane when they can move to the left hand lane...
Re: My, hasn't Eliza grown..
Let me tell you about my mother...
... BANG! BANG!
Scientsts all around the world, responding to a new global survey by Ipsos MORI...
... have generally agreed with the ideas that people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to the climate...
I hope we're not...
... on a Highway to Hell...
@LucreLout - Re: I have argued for many years
> Freedom fighters attack only military targets, terroists attack civilians. It's extremely clear cut.
Wow! I wish I lived in your lovely black and white world where things are so clear cut.
Still, you must be right, after all, no innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel in the last week or two, have they?
And all those people who lived in Dresden must have been in the German military because it would have been terrorism to firebomb a city full of civilians.
And there's no such thing as Collateral Damage.
No comment about the article as such...
... but kudos for the Wargames reference :-)
Shall we play a game?
Re: It's not dead - it's just pinin' for some fjords.
> Sounds like a job for Slartibartfast.....
Marvin: Did it have... oceans?
Arthur: Oh yes, great wide rolling blue oceans.
Marvin: Can't abide oceans...
There's got to be a difference between "We think Joe Bloggs is a criminal, we have this evidence and we want to look at his e-mails" and "We think Company X is doing something wrong, so we want to look at *ALL* the e-mails written by anyone in that company and *ALL* the data they have stored and..."
Re: It's the beginning of the next Maunder Minimum.
Hey Everyone - Jake says it's ok and we don't need to worry!
Isn't it great to have his expert opinion on this subject? (I wonder when he found time to do his PhD in Climatology along with all the other things he's an expert on...?)
Cue the usual...
... "Won't Someone Think of the PaedoTerrorists" arguments from those who think that the only way to keep us "safe" is for us to be obedient sheeple and not worry about the Government and Security Services from trying to spy on everything we do and everything we say and find out everyone we talk to and monitor everything we read "Just in Case" we might do something bad at some point.
It's not as if there's any risk of False Positives or mis-reading of the data or mistakes being made that result in innocent people being arrested, let alone charged because they have a name similar to someone else's or they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of course we shouldn't worry about this. Of course it's not a violation of our Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Of course it doesn't do us any harm because obviously we're not important enough for them to actually pay any attention to, so it's ok to let them keep doing it. And anyway, we don't have anything do hide, do we, so we have nothing to fear...
Quantity != Quality
Remember we get the *best* of US Television over here. If you search through enough dross you may find a few nuggest of gold...
@ Faye Kane â girl brain
Can I suggest that you put the name of the person you're responding to in the title of your comments as the El Reg forums do not do threading so it's difficult to know who the reply is directed at.
PS FYI I agree with a lot of your points :-)
@AC - Re: for some definition of paedophile...
> Australia has a couple of humdingers where people have been prosecuted for possessing child porn cartoons, which is the very definition of a victimless crime.
Even better, at least a couple of them were for possession of pictures of Bart and Lisa Simpson! See this article from El Reg in 2010
Oh, BTW, whilst using google to look up that link, the first result that came up is an Ad from Google "Warning - Child abuse imagery is illegal"! Probably got myself added to another watch list...
Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...
> God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious.
Yes, I've noticed that some people on here don't like it when people actually *question* their viewpoints and point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.
The witch burnings are over there on the Daily Mail pages --->
Oh and another PS: See this article: "Today's Facebook fury: Coppertone-like baby pic ban baffles US mom" from El Reg just last week.
I'm sure that that ban resulted from the actions of "reasonable" people too...
Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...
The word "reasonably" would laughable in this context if it wasn't such a fraught subject, because it is blatantly obvious that this is a subject about which it is virtually *impossible* to hold a "reasonable" discussion of!
The average man in the street/ on the Clapham Omnibus etc has had their viewpoint of the subject so skewed by the witch-burning tabloids and the like that even nearly a decade ago we had the nonsense of Julia Somerville being questioned by the Police over nude photos of her daughter in the bath
Now with the whole Jimmy Saville/ Rolf Harris/ whoever case, do you *really* think that things have or will change at all? The "reasonable" person in the street will see "naked child - child porn".
And don't forget that on the COPINE Scale even images that show "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness" are can be rated as Class 1 Child Pornography if someone else considers that they are "inappropriately" connected with other images.
> You're highly unlikely to be prosecuted for the possession of anime, or a book for grown-ups with words instead of pictures.
"Highly unlikely" (in your opinion) != "Not going to happen" and it doesn't even matter if you're *not* prosecuted for it because if someone is even *arrested* on suspicion, that's enough for some people who will think "there's no smoke without fire" and will ostracise them, fire them, ruin their lives and their careers...
That is the sad state of affairs that the "Won't Someone Think of the Children" mentality has got us into.
EDIT - ADDENDUM
Oh, PS, I've just seen the following from you...
> Judging by the downvoting of posts condemning child porn, it would indeed seem like there are more than a few deviants on here who like that kind of thing.
So much for "reasonable"! They disagree with your points, therefore they're into child porn...
I rest my case.
Re: @Ross K - for some definition of paedophile...
> Just so I'm clear - you're ok with pornographic images of children as long as they're not in photographic format?
No, and please don't try to use Straw Man arguments like that on me, I get enough of them from a certain other poster...
Since you seem to be at least passingly familiar with the law you will also know that it is (as I alluded to in my post) already an offence to have drawn images which were eg traced from a photograph and I don't have a problem with that, because that was actually abuse of a child.
What I *do* have a problem with is laws criminalising something based on someone's completely subjective impression of what a fictitious image looks like or, indeed, if some in government get their way, a fictional *description*, which could end up with possession Nabakov's Lolita being a criminal offence!
That is going into the realms of Thought Crime.
@Ross K - Re: for some definition of paedophile...
> I believe the line of thinking is that if you "just" look at images of child abuse, you're enabling the creator of the content - a child has to be abused for the image to be created.
Yes, of course, that is why it is now a crime to possess images such as those in the Japanese Manga and Anime "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" style which are *drawings* that are completely fictitious, that were *never* based on photographs or video of actual acts, but, none the less, will get you arrested because the imaginary participants *look* like children to Western eyes and that's enough for the Tabloid reading public to demand that "Something Must Be Done!" and our Governments are entirely happy to oblige them.
@AC - Re: for some definition of paedophile...
> if the lack of advertising (which is pretty much what it is) for child abuse means that one less child is molested by someone that's a win in my book.
Right, because children were never abused *before* the advent of the internet or before the invention of photography or before...
The fact still remains that most abuse is perpetrated by a close family member or someone who is known to the child and that has and will still happen whether there are pictures out there or not.
Unfortunately, meanwhile, we get people trotting out the "if XYZ can stop one child fewer from being molested it's a good thing" argument which is then used as a justification by TPTB for more laws and more censorship and Default-on blocking software with secret lists of "unacceptable" websites all based on the cry of "Won't Someone Think of the Children!"
Just be careful...
... A certain (ahem) "accident" that Howard Wolowitz suffered comes (painfully!) to mind..
@SoltanGris - Re: innocent or guilty
> RE: Evil Auditor on getting mug shots of 'innocent' people.
> Every time I've had my picture taking for :
The point is that those images are suppose (in this country at least) to *only* be used for a specified purpose, not a general CCTV surveillance dragnet.
@AC - Re: Why do the words...
But it's enough to get you arrested and for some people that's suffienciet for them to assume that you must be guilty of *something*, followed by your job, career, reputation or family life disappearing up the Swanee...
Why do the words...
... False Positive keep coming to mind...?
(Big Brother because there's no Kafka icon)
Re: innocent or guilty
The creepy part is
not this facial recognition system and that they keep mug shots of innocent people.
And bad advice...
When I got my new Virgin Broadband/ WiFi router the guy from Virgin told me "Don't change the default password because if you forget it and something goes wrong we won't be able to help you fix it and you'll have to call out an engineer or get a replacement..."
Right to be forgotten...
... sorry, who are you? Bing? Nope, never heard of you...
See, it works!!!
@David Neil - Re: Physical Acces Control Systems are affected too
My mother was in hospital recently and visitors were supposed not to be allowed into wards during meal times.
So, due to various circumstances, I arrive late and think "bugger, they won't let me in", but, at that moment, there's an old guy having a bit of difficulty getting his wheelchair out of the lift.
"Want a hand, mate?"
"Tell you what, I'll just push you into the ward, how about that?"
Nurse sees person pushing patient in wheelchair, lets us in...
(Ok, so it's not High Security, but still :-) )
... at least the Lawyers didn't get the $400m and leave everyone else with the rest...
If you do the maths, you'll find that if you can accelerate at 1g for a year, you're going to end up travelling pretty damn close to the speed of light anyway, so all we need is a better form of Drive.
@fruitof theloon - Re: Root
Nice suggestion, but on looking at the details...
Android 4.3 ONLY | NO ROOT | NO ADS
Updated - November 8, 2013
Another pub inspired idea...?
"So, what can we get people to ingest so we can detect this?"
"Dunno, fancy another pint?"
"Well, actually I could murder a curry right now..."
Pluto Energetic Particle Spectrometer Science Investigation
Ok, so how much did a certain soft drink company pay for *that* bit of product placement?!
Whatever else you might think...
... Thumbs up to the guy for not just sitting there and thinking "Someone should do something", but getting off his backside and getting it done!
Of course over here he wouldn't have been able to do it without forms signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters...
It's a good thing...
... none of this could be harmful to anyone's personal freedoms and civil liberties, isn't it?
At least it wasn't an Earth-Shattering Kaboom...!
@frank ly - Re: Watch it, asteroid pirates...
ITYM "We want [Name]'s career to have a fitting end in the [name] system..."
Watch it, asteroid pirates...
... I've got Military Lasers on my Mark III Cobra...
... Right on, Commander!
@keithpeter - Re: Non-obviousness
> @Don Jefe: and your invention would be patentable (I think) in the UK and most other countries.
Regrettably, now that he's made the information public in a form which is visible in the UK, IIRC it is no longer patentable.
@MrWibble - Re: Words that are friends ...
@ Brewster's Angle Grinder - Re: @graham
> Actually, their argument tends to be, "We don't like it and we don't want our children seeing it (or liking it)
No, the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" argument is just their excuse for trying to ban something that they don't want us seeing.
Re: @Symon - Doesn't kill anyone
> How about this?
Given the number of porn workers, what's remarkable is the *low* number of people infected and the measures that the industry itself is willing to take to deal with the problem.
Now compare that with the rising number of young people who have not got the Safer Sex message and have contracted STDs...
> why should anyone object to that?
Because, as is traditional with with religious lobbies and the Mary Whitehouse Brigade and so on, the objection is "We don't like it, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to see it, just in case it makes you do something bad..."
Unfortunately, as with all such prohibitions, it only makes the "forbidden fruit" even more attractive and does nothing to actually stop the behaviours (such as rape, abuse, misogyny etc) which happen whether or not the viewer has seen it.
Regrettably, however, because of the "shame" that society surrounds such things with, few people are willing to stand up and say "I like this, I want to see it", so the politicians pander to the vocal minority knowing that it will go down well in the hypocritical media (Daily Fail, I'm looking at you) with their claims that they are "protecting" us/ society/ women/ children from harm, when, in fact, they're causing the opposite.
Google have, it seems, fallen for the same short-sighted view.
@Symon - Re: Doesn't kill anyone
No, that's just stupidity and I don't see google blocking that any time soon...
> What you do NOT want is your mind state being transferred to Google
Have they invented Effectors, then?
- ← Prev
- Next →
- +Comment Anti-Facebook Ello: Here's why we're still in beta. SPAMGASM!
- Vid+Pics Microsoft WINDOWS 10: Seven ATE Nine. Or Eight did really
- Analysis Windows 10: One for the suits, right Microsoft? Or so one THOUGHT
- Xbox hackers snared US ARMY APACHE GUNSHIP ware - Feds
- George Clooney, WikiLeaks' lawyer wife hand out burner phones to wedding guests