4521 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
Which part of "global" didn't you understand? It's not *one* country's version of what it should be, we need a global agreement which everyone can sign up to.
Of course we also need to ensure that the MPAA et al don't get to dictate to everyone what the law should be...
"... he was dictating..."
'debates could look increasingly "unattractive"...
"... to members of the public, while some members might not listen quite as attentively as they should to complex points made in debate."
So, no real change there, then.
About the only difference will be that, instead of Junior MPs being sent out of the Chamber by their superiors to go and look up an embarrassing quote from an Opposing Minister, they can now just look it up on Hansard.
Data Loss / Data Recovery
As mentioned most recently in a documentary hosted by Tony Robinson, on close inspection there appears to be a line of stitch holes indicating that there was once thread depicting an arrow in the eye of the figure on the ground who is being hit in the leg by the mounted Knight but the thread had somehow been lost.
If so, it's rather akin to recovering lost data using more sensitive tools than a standard read-head :-)
"Some of the comments on this article suggest that all religious belief and/or behaviour should be criminalised; that’s where your argument leads – they are loonies they should be banned for the public good/health/sanity etc… I think that’s a slippery slope."
I'm sorry, but I disagree (and what others may be calling for is nothing to do with me and I don't necessarily agree with them either).
In any case, the "slippery slope" is actually the one that follows from your advocating that "We either have freedom of expression or we don’t. As soon as we start to qualify it, we have lost it. Who is to decide what is reasonable anyway?"
I am not advocating "silence the heretic" however I am pointing out that if your freedom to act is restricted by the expression "my freedom to swing my fists about ends at the tip of your nose" it is only because you have the Right to behave in whatever way you choose *provided* that it does not infringe on other's Right not to (for example) be punched in the face.
The Exodus group's App is not merely expressing a view, it is advocating a dangerous course of action ie that if you are gay you can be "cured" by their methods.
We have restrictions on "miracle cure" claims from advertisers for their products which is, by your argument, unacceptable, because it restricts their freedom of expression whereas I am simply arguing that unless such claims can be scientifically proven to be demonstrably correct, they should not be allowed to make them due to the harm that could follow.
"We either have freedom of expression or we don’t. As soon as we start to qualify it, we have lost it. Who is to decide what is reasonable anyway?"
And the obvious answer to that is "Is it reasonable to yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre"?
The Right of Freedom of Expression (which is one that I most certainly support and encourage) has to be balanced with the *Responsibility* to use that Right in a sensible and non-injurious way.
You can find many posts from me on these forums and elsewhere about the right of consenting adults to produce and view so-called Extreme Pornography, but you won't find any posts from me anywhere about the right of someone to produce child pornography (and just to forestall a possible response: drawings which are entirely fictitious are of course an entirely different matter)
So that is "qualifying" the Right of Freedom of Expression, but unless you would argue for the right to take photos of children in sexual situations (and I am sure you wouldn't), you must, ipso facto, agree that there *is* a line beyond which that Right has to be restricted.
As for your analogy that the idea of objecting to those who claim they can "cure homosexuality" is akin to the Church's objection to the Copernican System of Planetary Motion, I am sorry, but that is complete nonsense.
The former is not an "illness" and to claim this (by saying that it can be "cured") is to ignore not only a huge body of scientific fact, but also to do the same as in, in the latter case, where the Church chose to ignore or suppress or persecute the views (and scientific proofs) of anyone who looked objectively at the evidence.
Science has moved on from the attitude of "we don't like this, therefore it's wrong", it's just that some who hold to "faith" in defiance of facts are not able to do so.
It is not simply a matter of the misquoted content. This group are free to hold their view that "heterosexuality as God’s creative intent for humanity, and homosexual expression as outside of God’s will", but when they start talking about "curing" it, especially when that "cure" involves techniques which are akin to brainwashing and which have been linked with depression and suicides they have gone beyond reasonable Freedom of Expression.
As such Apple removing this App is not "censorship", it is them ensuring that the content that they allow is truthful and doesn't risk causing harm to others.
These people from 2007 agree too...
Yes, that's a news report from *four years* ago with people complaining about the 450s which were originally (supposedly) designed for suburban journeys and only intended to be used on "short run" local routes, not inter-city commuter routes.
Of course what SWT has found is that it can claim to be "making more seats available", ignoring the minor fact that it's almost impossible to *use* those seats!
"...instead blamed the Chinese government for snooping."
So what Google are saying is that it is ok for *them* to snoop your emails to send you "targetted advertising", but object if anyone else does it?
Why does the word "hypocrites" come to mind???
"The patents cover ways of tabbing through various screens to find information, quickly surfing the web, and interacting with documents and e-books.'
So all things that are blatantly obvious to anyone who has used tabbed browers, surfed the web or made notes.
Aren't patents supposed to be *original* inventions which *aren't* obvious to anyone with experience in that field? Oh, of course, not in the USA...
You miss the point, it is not simply that this App is "offensive" and it is not that those who object to this App are simply trying to "suppress the views of others", they are objecting to the fact that it spreads malicious falsehoods about gay people with the implication that being homosexual is an "illness" that can be "cured" by techniques that are dangerously close to brainwashing.
This App goes way beyond expressing a viewpoint and into highly dangerous and irresponsible lies which may well have resulted in the suicides of some of its victims.
"For the first time...
"there will be a clearly defined web address for adult entertainment"
Sure, and *everyone* is immediately going to migrate their porn content over to it...
"out of the reach of minors"
And if you believe that, I can do you a very good deal on Tower Bridge.
"and as free as possible from fraud or malicious computer viruses"
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
"We believe consumers will be more prepared to make purchases on .XXX sites, safe in the knowledge their payments will be secure"
And, of course, you'll compensate them when the Russians/ Nigerians/ Anyone Else gets their hands on these domains and start pumping out viagra.xxx or 419.xxx or...?
@Are you new here?
No, are you? If you were, you might not be aware that I'm the guy with the business making "interesting" leather goods.
You might also not make the connection that I know professional pole dancers who would be seriously upset if the top-of-the-line "tool of their trade" (go on, have a good snigger because I said "tool") had been nicked and probably flogged off for a few quid by their boyfriend.
Tell you what, if your laptop gets nicked by your ex, get El Reg to put a story on here and we'll all have a good laugh about it because, well, it's Friday, isn't it.
I thought I was reading El Reg....
... not the Tabloid Press...
If it had been a $400 laptop with her work on it, would you have made a big story about it?
"it either equals or slightly exceeds...
"... the number of household fixed broadband connections"
Well obviously some of them are downloading films, music, games etc *TWICE*!!!
Whois,,, the patsy?
"Hello Mr <gullible person in need of some quick cash>
"We are willing to pay you £500 to register these domains at your address, all you need to do is fill in the forms and confirm the details when the request comes through, sorted."
Cue several thousand domains registered at one address and one poor sap who has nothing to do with kiddie porn getting hauled up in court...
"there is a world of difference...
"...between blocking material that is generally agreed to be abhorrent and unlawful across the world, and blocking or policing where different regulatory regimes are in play."
Unfortunately there are too many people (a lot of them were in the last government) who think that *their* definitions of what is "abhorrent" are the only ones that matter and that they should thereby be able to dictate what everyone else is allowed to see.
Regrettably, however, it seems that (especially on the Tory side of the coalition) the same mentality exists...
"the economics of child abuse...
"...make it less of a focus for organised crime than popular belief would have it."
What? You mean that those International Networks of Organised Paedos which we've heard so much about from Jim Gamble et al turn out to be figments of an over-excited imagination?
What a larf...
... getting people to panic like that, total lulz!!!
"this should *never* be accepted as evidence in court!"
An "about 80%" success rate does not equate to "beyond reasonable doubt"!
"as though by lazy hacks...
" who had simply looked up stuff on the internet – for instance actually reading the text of the proposed bill, "
ITWM "as though by lazy news services who simply cut and paste articles from other services without actually bothering to check if any of it bears any resemblance to the truth...
From Not the Nine o'Clock News...
Counsel: This receipt is for the digital watch...
Judge: ...a digital watch? What on earth is a "digital watch"?
Counsel: Sorry m'lud. A digital watch is a watch worked by microelectronics.
Judge: Oh! How fascinating. Proceed.
Counsel: The next receipt is for an automatic video recorder...
Judge: ..."automatic video recorder"?
Counsel: Yes, I'm sorry m'lud. It's a machine that records television programmes on special tape.
Judge: Oh, how fascinating. What will they think of next? Proceed.
Counsel: Thank you m'lud. And finally, a receipt for a "deluxe model inflatable woman", whatever that is.
Judge: The Deluxe is the one with the real hair...
"The court heard...
"...McCabe, who was an IT consultant in human resources for the Metropolitan Police, found himself in a downward spiral sparked by an interest in adult pornography."
Because that makes a better exculpatory argument than "well, I like looking at pictures of naked kiddes".
It doesn't make it true, however.
"More often than not "pointless" speed limits in rural areas are due to unseen risks. "
Yes, of course, that's why the last Government wanted to introduce a blanket 50mph limit on *ALL* rural roads no matter what.
And, no, I'm not a traffic engineer, but I am an IAM Member so I can spot hazards where they exist and, more importantly, see where they don't exist.
... Goodbye Cruel World by Pink Floyd...
Quick, call Facebook!!
Unfortunately I predict...
... more extensions of 30mph limits outside village limits, not to mention pointless rural 40 mph limits etc because someone's stood there with a speed gun and gone "OMG! Look how fast these people are going, it can't be safe!"
"I believe that porn can be dangerous for society"
You are falling for the "Precautionary Principle" fallacy of "well, we don't know if it's dangerous, but let's ban it anyway, just to be on the safe side" which Wacky Jacqui and her cohorts used to justify passing the Dangerous Pictures Act outlawing so-called Extreme Pornography.
As for "no one knows the effects that long term unrestricted access to Porn" I suggest you look at the work of Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied exactly that by looking at the situation in the USA and Japan (where there is *all sorts* of extreme porn easily available) and concluded: "It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes"
Opt-in systems are just a way of restricting people's right to see and view what they choose, I don't have to say "Please Sir, may I look at this stuff if it's ok with you", unless there is a legitimate and verifiable reason for restricting access to something (eg child porn) then there is *no* justification for preventing or limiting my access to it.
Ms Smith began by positioning herself as impartial outsider
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
She is from the ex-Government which brought us Policy Based Evidence Making, ie deciding what they wanted the law to be then canvassing only the opinions of those who agreed with that to justify their positions.
That Government brought in multiple Nanny State laws to "save" us from Dangerous Pictures, Dangerous Cartoons, Dangerous Drugs and so on without *ANY* proof that they were actually dangerous, but that didn't matter because Wacky Jacqui and friends *believed* that they were, so us poor, weak minded and morally deficient people *needed* to be protected from such things!
Jacqui Smith is not interested in anything which contradicts her views, she knows best what is good for us and even though she has absolutely *no* credibility in these matters somehow she still gets the oxygen of publicity to spread misinformation and biased opinions, ignoring all the facts that show how utterly wrong she is.
Gods forbid that anyone should supply weapons to regimes like, oh, I don't know, Libya, for instance...
@No-one's mentioned the books
Well I haven't for a good reason: I was trying to repress the memory of Blade Runner 2 which tried (and completely failed) to square the circle between Do Androids... and the film Blade Runner and was a hopeless mish-mash that failed to comprehend that the two were entirely different entities.
Blofeld did it first!
@I just wish
Whereas I wish that the arrogant pillocks who are in power would stop thinking that *they* know best for the rest of us and would all decide to emigrate to the middle of nowhere so they can pass all the laws they want to their heart's content and enjoy living under their own rule whilst the rest of us are allowed to get on with our lives!
Does that mean they're working flat out or just that they're lying down on the job?
Also speaking as a surfer...
... you've got more chance of dying in an accident on the way to or from the beach than you have of being a victim of a shark attack.
Try doing some research which might improve your "thinkin'"
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps
- Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16