4661 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Of course what was even better was when a mate's dad ran a newsagent and there was an occasional bit of "stock shrinkage"...
... erm allegedly...
On an application form...
... a friend filled in recently, the options were Male/ Female/ Other which whilst not perfect is at least a reasonable attempt.
Labour's plans to license journalists...
"Say things we like, or we take away your licence..."
I get all my news from...
... The Register!
I hope he doesn't end up getting sued by Google...
Erm, you might want to check the origin and meaning of Akvavit, Uisge Baugh, Vodka, Aqua Vitae...
NASA are building space-based lasers to beam signals down to the planet...??
Where's my tin-foil hat?!?!
1850s Conestoga Wagon & similar era Buckboard
"No, Ma'am, I said *buck* board, but as the saying has it: 'a ride for a ride'..."
[Insert micro-celebrity's name here] was photographed doing [insert mildly scandalous or salacious tittle-tattle here] along with [Insert another micro-celebrity's name here] last [day/ week/ month/ year]
This is obviously *SUCH* important news that it *MUST* take priority over everything else because we say so!!!
.... handbags at dawn, then...?
Are you in the legal profession? It certainly sounds like it to me, because you seem to be in favour of a system that is designed to give lots of money to lawyers.
When I set up my business on the web I decided to go for .co.uk because that was the most appropriate suffix being a UK company, not realising that world+dog (especially in the USA) would go for .com even if it wasn't appropriate for them.
So now there's a .com version of my domain which I'd like to get, but it's sitting parked, doing nothing because some greedy company wants $3000 for it, an amount that I'm not willing to pay (even if I could afford it given the current state of the economy) and neither am I willing to fork out similar amounts to register a trademark and then try to fight through the long and convoluted process of proving that I am entitled to that domain because either way I'd end up losing money.
So, you have a choice, pay the Domain Squatter (sorry, holding service) a few grand for the domain or spend a few grand registering a trademark and going through an ownership dispute...
Sounds like lose/ lose to me.
... the Neutrinos just took a short cut...
When I were a lad...
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
FOUR YORKSHIREMEN SKETCH WARNING!
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
... so protecting the profits (and bonuses) of the multi-million pound international music and film industry by allowing them to demand that sites that they say are infringing their copyrights be closed *immediately* is *so* much more important than protecting small businesses from unjustified take-downs because someone posted something which, allegedly, infringes copyright on Friday evening and it won't be until Monday morning that they find out that their site has been down over the weekend as they didn't instantly jump to delete the offending post when the industry said they should.
... Failbook decides what it thinks is important *for* you!
For certain values of "important"...
"...will also put a mobile phone into every car in Europe"
Great! So if you have a crash and you were using your mobile, it's ok because eCall put it in there, so it *must* be ok to use!
Oh, BTW, "if you want to travel anonymously after 2015 then best get yourself an (eCall-exempted) motorcycle", that's all well and good, but the EU wants to add a whole load of "safety" requirements to motorbikes like compulsory ABS, banning *any* modifications to engines, gearbox, sprockets etc (basically anything between the airbox and up to and including the rear wheel!), the possibility of roadside emission checks by Police etc, they could also end up emulating the current rules the French are trying to enforce where bikers are to be made to wear full sleeve hi-viz jackets because it's obviously *their* fault that drivers didn't see them!
MAG are organising a country-wide protest on Sunday the 25th so bikers can demonstrate exactly what they think of these proposals see http://www.mag-uk.org/en/campaignsdetail/a6883 for more details and if you're on the M27 Rownhams Services eastbound on Sunday, I'll see you there :-)
... Certainly, Sir, I'll sell you this fantastic anti-satellite insurance policy.
If you're killed by a fragment of satellite I'll pay you one million pounds on personal application...
"...has been aggressively pursuing new opportunities to keep businesses paying and paying for more and more domains which they don't need and don't want, but are going to have to register simply to stop someone else from squatting on them..."
There, fixed it for you!
Do no evil...
... or if you do, don't get caught...!
... Come Home!
@Clare (web specialist)
"Society" did nothing of the sort. A bunch of Labour MPs desperate for some publicity, seeing a band wagon they could jump on (and exploiting the grief of a mother whose daughter had died in what was actually probably a tragic accident), forced a piece of legislation (supported by policy based evidence making) onto the statute books without letting our elected representatives have sufficient time to debate the entire bill it was contained in.
It was left to the Lib Dems in the Lords to question it but they couldn't get enough support to block it because, as one Tory Peer admitted to me, "Tory Lords don't vote on Lib Dem amendments".
So we ended up with (yet another) nonsensical and utterly unenforceable piece of legislation on the statute books and if you are *really* a "web specialist" you would know perfectly well that attempting to enforce *any* restriction "across the internet" (even if only in the UK) is utterly impossible.
@Clare (web specialist)
Right, so let's block *everything* that *might* possibly give access to "extreme" pictures (defined as "pictures that people like Clare (web specialist) don't like".
We can start with Google, Bing, Yahoo...
@Clare (web specialist)
Well firstly this "cross industry body" is going to target exactly what that *industry* doesn't want out there.
And secondly, apart from kiddy porn, what other "more objectionable" content on the internet would you like to see blocked according to the personal opinions of the people on this or some other such body?
We already have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings acts, what's next to be banned because "We don't like this, so you're not allowed to see it"?
"we must take care that...
"...power is never over-concentrated in a few hands"
Yet that is *exactly* what he is suggesting with a "cross-industry body [...] charged with identifying infringing websites against which action could be taken".
Does he *really* think that they are going to operate in the best interests of the public? Or are they just going to operate in the best interests of their profits and bonuses???
@Clare (web specialist)
I agree, given that extortion and blackmail are illegal, this sort of protection racket should be banned outright.
"Facebook has several hundred employees...
"...who constantly do damn all when people raise complaints about fake accounts, being unfairly blocked for 'spamming' when they haven't, and who block people from their own pages when the log in has been been hacked etc etc etc..."
There, fixed it for you!
Everyone remembers Tattooine...
... but who remembers Helliconia?
Re: With apologies to the Beach Boys...
Damn, you beat me to it, I was going to post something similar ending with "She can't have fun, fun, fun 'cause dad's disabled the T-Bird today!"
And, of course, Face Book will not, at any time, arbitrarily decide to change the settings on your templates so suddenly what you thought was "Close Friends Group" only turns out to be going to "Work Group" or "Family Group" etc....
"as long as people avoided...
"...unwholesome scenes of violence and the like."
Erm, I can think of a few Playmobil reconstructions by El Reg which might fall foul of this!!
Ah, that's one which...
... oh, sorry, you said *an*gina...
As Richard Feynman said...
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't"
I suggest you look up the word "subsequent"...
@Well, we elect them...
... no, the blame is on those who, when we had the chance to *change* a broken electoral system, decided to believe the FUD spread by the vested interests in politics and the media and *stay* with that broken system after a choice of "FPTP or AV" was foisted upon us instead of us being allowed to decide amongst *ALL* the possible options.
Re: "We blindly accept new laws without so much of a squeak"
It's not that "we" accept them, but our "elected representatives" (who are supposed to tell Parliament what *we*, their constituents think) usually blindly follow their Party Whips' instructions "this is Party Policy, this is how you will vote".
A few have the courage to stand up and object, but their voices are generally drowned out and even if they manage to get an amendment tabled, it's usually voted down by the rest.
"[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering
... please don't let comments this excellent article be swamped by endless Conspiracy Theory arguments which have been debunked time and time again, yet never die.
I remember the IRA attacks of the 1970s
The word then was "We will not let the terrorists change how we behave or let them destroy our freedoms"
Now it's "We must give up our freedoms, our liberties, our rights to 'protect' society from terrorists and if you don't agree, you must have something to hide like being on their side!"
Every time our leaders introduce another measure that restricts our rights and liberties "for our own good" Al Qaeda et al are sitting in their dens laughing their socks off as they watch us doing their job for them.
Time for Ben Franklin again: "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
@AC: re: Bombing
IIRC There was a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera which had a character called the "Chief Exploder" whose job it was to keep an eye on the Ruler of the Country and, if the Ruler got out of hand, the Chief Exploder would, well, explode the Ruler and then become Ruler in their stead.
Of course a new Chief Exploder would then be appointed...! :-)
Re: Go back to paper petitions
Have you tried organising a country-wide petition? Even if you can organise one, it requires people to be in the right place to get others to sign. In the past I've seen a petition handed in to Number 10 and thought "I'd like to have signed that, but I didn't even *know* about it..."
(Oh and before now AIUI governments have tried and sometimes managed, to get a huge petition written off as a *single* comment!)
Re: We live in a REPRESENTATIONAL democracy.
"We vote in a representative for us, who then gets to vote on our behalf... or not, as the case so often is."
Unfortunately, frequently they get *told* how to vote by the Party Whips, ie they're representing to us what their Party decides we want...
Don't even joke about that, otherwise you're liable to end up with a jail sentence...!
Ah, but don't forget...
... there's the new documentary Apollo 18 which has just been released which blows all the old conspiracy theories away and substitutes entirely new ones!
Of course they had to pretend it was all just a movie to get it past the censors, but now we know the truth!!!!!
(Oh and tell the gentlemen in the white coats that mine's the one with the long canvas sleeves and the tinfoil hat in the pocket...)
Pah! My BBC Micro was quicker! Switch on, Boop-Beep! and there you were!
Re: replies to your posts
I agree, it would save the hassle having to go to "my posts" and then open the discussion and find your posts to see if anything has been added.
"The Tea Party can be lambasted for having 2 sets of standards (one for citizens and one for POW) but even I don't really see a problem with that as long as both standards are humane."
You really don't see a problem with that? Hmm, let me try a few expressions on you here:
Separate but Equal
Some are More Equal than others
American vs Un-American
There's plenty of precedents for double standards...
... hacking meant you had to make an appointment to be arrested...?
Oh, sorry, wrong sort of hacking, of course!
"...would naturally point out at this stage that humanity still ought to curtail carbon emissions"
Or just point out that we should use energy *more efficiently* which would make the most of a limited resource *and* cut emissions at the same time.
I'm glad to hear that you got something out of the YTS/ YOP/ Whatever it may be called, but the fact remains that most people on such schemes are just used as a source of cheap, government funded labour doing monkey work with no chance of a job at the end.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Something for the Weekend, Sir? Why can’t I walk past Maplin without buying stuff I don’t need?
- Review 'Mommy got me an UltraVibe Pleasure 2000 for Xmas!' South Park: Stick of Truth