Re: 2 words
Two more words:
6874 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
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"
And how is her "bill to prohibit the anonymous sale of pre-paid mobile phones in America" going to stop someone from buying a boat-load of these phones and then flogging them out by all sorts of clandestine methods?
Another idiot politician whose knee-jerk reaction to a problem is to pass a law banning it.
I love this bit: "if people could see – which they obviously can’t [...] I believe they would be greatly reassured."
Why am I reminded of Russell's Teapot?
"...and to bring it up to modern-day standards"
Translation: Flog it off to one of Call Me David's rich mates and leave the plebs at the mercy of a system which is rigged against them because they can no longer get Legal Aid or even afford a competant solictor :-(
Meanwhile: "making pleas by mobile phones"? WTF? Sure, you leave your phone lying around, your mate picks it up, sees the message saying "Plead now" and, for a laugh, types in "I'm as guilty as sin and throw myself on the mercy of the Court..."
> it might benefit drivers to have law enforcement tracking us
Here in the UK, the last Labour Government wanted to introduce ANPR cameras at all junctions on major roads (ie motorways and dual carriageways) with the idea that if you got from A to B faster than the speed limit, they could automatically issue you with a speeding ticket.
Fortunately saner minds prevailed after it was pointed out that not only would this create a massive Snoopers Database (even bigger than the current ANPR database) that could be used to track the journeys of road users, but it would also result in many people leaving the major roads and, instead, going through the small towns and villages which said motorways and dual carriageways were designed to bypass, in order to avoid the cameras, thus clogging up those roads instead.
If traffic laws are not enforced well, this is not the way to improve such enforcement.
> I wouldn't mind a car system that just prevented speeding in the first place.
Then fix the nut behind the wheel...
> None of the "get Win10 now" manifestations has forcibly updated anything overnight when I wasn't looking.
And because Lysenko hasn't had this happen, obviously *nobody else* has had this happen either, have they?
Of course the fact that most people don't know how to avoid the GWX bullshit and stop it installing on their systems is not relevant to him...
> I. Don't. Care.
Fine: your life, your right, your choice.
But neither you nor Microsoft have the right to make that determination for *us*!
MS forcing people to opt in to their spyware is arrogant and unethical and shows a total disrespect for the wishes of their customers.
And if your response is "if you don't like it, don't use it", you don't even get that CHOICE because they have chosent to first make KB3035583 an "optional" update, then an "important" update and then, after I've chosen to hide it, UNHIDING it again to try and force it onto me!
So, fine, dance around naked if you want to, but don't expect others to do the same.
... 65 million years ago they'd maybe have been able to say "Oh shit..."
"...and unilaterally asserts UK jurisdiction overseas"
Ah, I see they're learning from the Yanks...
... for a comment from amanfrommars1...
But why should journalists bother with all that tedious investigation and researching of facts when they can just get ill-informed, ignorant or bigotted Joe and Josephine Public to rabbit on for a while about something they really don't understand?
"Doesn't matter which party is in power, you're going to be screwed either way, so bend over and smile..."
"...to substantial reforms to respect human rights and international law,"
And on that day, Satan will be seen ice-skating to work.
I've downvoted you because you miss the entire point about Human Rights and Civil Liberties and trotting out a variant on the "I have nothing to hide" nonsense we hear so often.
These protections are there for *everyone's* benefit, including yours (whether you want them or not). More importantly, YOU do not have the right to decide that OUR Rights should be treated with such disdain simply because you don't understand how important they are.
> I fear we will lose some of our liberties in the name of safety.
Do I really need to quote Ben Franklin again...?
If they haven't listened to the feedback already, why should we believe that they're going to listen to it now?
"MOPAC is also minded to pursue a claim against Northrop Grumman for costs and damages arising from the supplier's failure to deliver a command and control solution in accordance with the contract"
But if they do, will they have a good chance of getting their (our!) money back or will we end up with an even bigger bill as their lawyers' fees are added on top?