5068 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"there wasn't an injury that could be quantified in monetary amounts"
The plaintiffs should have claimed that it cost over $5000 worth of time to deal with the security issues raised (cf McKinnon)
@Happened to me
Well, you've got to admit that "Packrat" is a little unusual...
Re: "what a tit"...
...Says someone calling himself Sir Cosmo Bonsor....
"edit your name to comply with our policies"
Right, so if *your* name doesn't fit with *their* policies, *you* have to change *your* name to suit them!
... that username is already taken...!
Go back and click on "thumbs up" instead and it will swap the down-vote to an up-vote.
Re: Innocent people's lives...
... "Yeah, there's this guy, calls himself "Inventor of the Marmite Laser" he's got this flash computer and a load of other gear, I reckon he's one of these crooks who's fucked up innocent people's lives...
"(The fact that I've got a grudge against the bloke and he's done nothing wrong except piss me off is a mere technical detail...)"
Re: Cats don't have owners...
... they have staff!
It could be worse...
... they could have been given Segways!
@"We don't do freedom of speech the same over here chum."
No, we don't, for instance you could have added the Extreme Porn Law that the last Government brought in too.
But that's not to say that these are good or sensible laws...
... you've got to remember that Lewis is a navy guy for whom all "fly boys" are nothing more than glory hounds who are more interested in getting ribbons on their chest to impress the ladies...
"a pornography site that draws attention to the plight of animals"
Err, perhaps they'd better read the Extreme Porn Legislation carefully or otherwise block it in this country otherwise...
... on second thoughts, forget I mentioned it!
"He was resisting arrest, and not yet cuffed"
Presuming we're talking about Grant here, no, he wasn't cuffed, however he *was* lying face down. The officer decided, supposedly, that he was going to Tase him, but pulled his pistol instead and discharged it.
The thing is, even if he had drawn the Taser *why* did he feel it necessary to Tase someone who was lying face down and *NOT* a threat? Perhaps to punish him for "not cooperating with the Police"? Is that a legitimate use of a Taser, do you think?
And, once again, you seem to think that this guys death was his own fault. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that not "sitting down and shutting up" is not a capital crime?
Your final paragraph reminds me of the old joke "Help the Police, beat yourself up"...
Ok, fine, I got the wrong person, although given the way that you referred to Oscar Grant, even on re-reading I can see why I didn't think you were referring to Charles Hill because you start with "He did throw the knife" and then refer to Grant, not Hill.
If you have a choice between a Taser and a Handgun *even if* under duress, wouldn't your "fairly extensive firearms training" suggest that you make sure, especially if "under duress" *which* weapon you're using *before* you discharge it?
"I'm telling you, in excruciating detail, that if you are an idiot when an authority figure with access to firearms tells you to "stay put", and you choose NOT to "stay put", you are likely to remove yourself from the gene pool. Why people have issues with this basic principle is beyond me ... Blaming the cop is contraindicated."
Because the "basic principle" is that you *DO NOT* use a firearm on someone *UNLESS* you wish to *KILL* that person. "Fairly extensive firearms training" should tell you that "in excruciating detail". Being an "idiot" or not doing what an authority figure with access to firearms says is *not* a capital crime, nor does it justify the use of deadly force.
And, yes, I did read your post for content, probably more carefully than you did when you wrote your rant that wandered off into claims that "most of the folks arrested in the "knife thrower" killing protests are the same rent-a-mob that protests Redwood cutting (at least in good weather), trashed Seattle awhile back". (Got any evidence for this? Any cites? Names?)
Even if they *are* the same people, so what? Are they only allowed to protest *one* issue? Was their protest illegal? Did you agree with Syria and Libya cutting off internet and mobile phone access to stop protests? If not, why agree with it in this case because you consider these people to be "rent a mob"? (Who is "renting" them? Is announcing by mobile device that there is going to be a protest "renting a mob? Why is that different from any other way of organising a protest?)
Care to try again to answer my points?
And I've seen the video too...
... there are plenty of copies of it available on YouTube etc and the officer shot a man in the back who was lying face down on the floor.
The officer claimed, apparently, that he was trying to use his Taser, well if you can't tell the difference between a Taser and a firearm, you shouldn't be allowed to use either! (You claim "fairly extensive firearms training", can you tell the difference?")
As for "If a cop tells you to sit down, keep your hands in sight, and wait for them to sort things out ... you'd better do exactly that. If you're innocent, you'll walk away unhurt." are you saying that if you *don't* do that then you're liable to be shot just because you've not done as you're told? Does your "fairly extensive firearms training" justify the use of deadly force in such a situation? Is it justified if someone is "being a stupid ass"? If so, I know a lot of other people you can shoot.
And finally I get sick of people (especially the authorities) trying to block, ban or disrupt lawful protest or dismissing anyone who wants to object to the unnecessary use of deadly force as "rent a mob" simply because they don't agree with them.
I can't recall it happening recently, but I'm sure it has happened in the past, however short of going back through all my old posts to find an example, I'll just have to keep an eye out for it in future.
I did wonder if it might have been due to the moderation process eg with reply posts somehow getting "disconnected" from the OP.
I'm sure I've replied to messages mid page yet still seen the response turn up as a "new" message instead of part of the thread.
Re: THERE'S A FUCKING REPLY BUTTON ON YOUR SCREEN - USE IT.
Actually I think this is an occasional glitch with El Reg's forum system. Before now I've done "Reply to post" only to have my message come up as a separate entity instead of being appended with a "quote bar" to the OP.
@Since when was Rioting a civil liberty?
Fail yourself, because you missed the bit that says "I Don't Care About The Consequences Just Make Those Baddies Go Away"
Too many people are willing to say "Fuck Civil Liberties" as soon as any trouble breaks out and they're happy to come up with lists like that which will "solve" the problem.
The fact that what that will leave after may be *worse* doesn't seem to occur to them. (Remember ID cards et al? What if we had them now? Would the Rioters be carrying them? Should the Police stop *everyone* on the streets and check them for ID cards and arrest *anyone* who doesn't have one, even if you've just popped down to the shops, come back to find trouble has kicked off and you forgot to pick up yours??)
@Norfolk 'n' Goode
I think that was supposed to be irony (at least I sure as hell *hope* it was)
"5) Blame parents. Why not?"
How many of the rioters are 11?
"8) Have a curfew. Would have helped, actually."
Right, so have a curfew where anyone on the street is an automatic suspect and is rounded up and arrested. Great for all those people trying to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance.
"9) Multiculturalism isn't working. I thought this was accepted knowledge now."
Only in the Daily Mail.
"12) Bring back National Service. Why is this such a ridiculous idea? [...] Germany still has National Service"
If you hadn't noticed (of course you hadn't or even bothered to check, you'd know that a) German National Service was only compulsory for men and b) They stopped it as of July 2011. Oh and c) German civil liberties *aren't* fine because they have restrictions on freedom of expression, data retention laws and monitoring of the senders and recipients of e-mails, phone calls and other electronic communications.
Still, judging from your comments, you probably think that that's a perfectly acceptable situation...
Who wants to play Fuck Civil Liberties Bingo?
(From a friend)
Also known as I Don't Care About The Consequences Just Make Those Baddies Go Away... a point for everything you spot on Twitter/ Facebook/ chat site of your choice.
1) Call in the Army
2) I'm so proud that racist thugs are patrolling the high street to 'defend the community'
3) Shut down the Internet
4) Shut down the mobile phone networks
5) Blame the mothers
6) Ban violent videos/ computer games
7) Ban gangsta rap (even though saying this proves you are old as gangsta rap now unfashionable with the yoot)
8) Have a curfew
9) Multiculturalism isn't working
10) At least everyone's stopped fussing about Murdoch and phone hacking
11) Let the Police use Rubber Bullets
12) Bring back National Service
13) Bring back the Birch
14) Bring back the Stocks
15) Bring back the Death Penalty
(burned down) HOUSE!
"No boom today...
"...Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow."
- Susan Ivanova, Babylon 5.
@On what planet....
... the same one that puts plans on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"!
So let's see...
... I'm in a hurry, I'm holding my phone in my hand as I dash along a corridor, jump down a short flight of steps and *boom* there go my fingers...
There's an old saying...
... about fools and their money...
... and Carry On...?!
At least someone's got a sense of humour :-)
Erm, I think you mean MP, not PM.
The only people who can "elect" the PM are members of that person's political party.
... the Commemorative Coins you're looking for...
Re: "...in an emergency you send a message to the services?"
I don't know who you're addressing that too, but I'd point out that I was responding to a comment that "You could shut down mobile phones altogether".
"Police phones have different SIMs"
Right, so if I'm in an area where ordinary mobile phones have been shut down, all I have to do if I need to call the Police is find a Policeman and borrow his phone...
that would also prevent...
... people from oh, I don't know, calling the Police or Fire Brigade or Ambulance Service...
Here is the world's smallest violin...
... playing "My Heart Bleeds for You"...!
Local TV News Headlines:
And tonight's top story - Mrs Johnson of Green Road has lost her cat...
.. her mistake was not offering the officer a freebie...
@Robert Long 1
"Kids under about 14 are incapable of not learning by example"
Remind me again, what certificate is GTA?
So, remind me....
... what violent games like GTA et al were available in the early 1980 when there were riots in London, Liverpool, Bristol...?
When was PacMan first produced? Oh yes, 1980.
Some people commented on the "Christian" imagery in the film (eg rebirth and, at Jupiter the giant monolith and the Jovian moons apparently making the shape of a cross).
Clarke commented that this was somewhat fanciful since "Stanley is a Jew and I'm an atheist!"
Clarke, in an interview after the film's release, joked that "If you understood 2001 the first time then we failed". Unfortunately the critics who he was mocking didn't get the film or the joke...
Kubrick also commented that Hollywood had been making films for 12 year old minds for so long that the critics had developed 12 year old minds!
The film started with Stanley Kubrick contacting Arthur C Clarke with an idea to make "the proverbial good science fiction movie".
Clarke was involved in the project (which was originally going to be called "Journey Beyond the Stars") right from the get-go and all the way through with the novel and film being written simultaneously with feedback in both directions.
Read "The Lost Worlds of 2001" by Clarke and "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" by Jerome Agel for all the details.
I was thinking...
... more of You Only Live Twice :-)
Launching the rocket from an extinct volcano isn't mandatory, but would be really cool!
(Helicopter icon is the nearest thing to Little Nellie)
Erm, if you mouse over one of those messages and click on the little X which appears in the top right of the message you get a box that lets you "Hide all from Farmville".
Bravo, you've just nuked all Farmville messages!
More useless petitions...
Even if a petition gets over 100,000 votes and is brought up in Parliament, there are only *six* Parliamentary days between now and next April for all such petitions to be debated and even then it's not automatically going to result in a change in law, merely a statement that "Parliament thinks..."
You'd be far better advised to write to your MP via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ where there's at least a chance that someone will pay attention to your views.
... with the understanding that it's *OUR* data, for *OUR* benefit, and not to be flogged off to businesses, insurers, marketing agencies or anyone else who'll give them a quick buck and us an on-going pain in the backside!
NotW 'was labelled a "toxic" brand'
It was a poisonous rag long before this controversy...!
The point is not so much the appointment, but having your doors kicked in when a simple ring of the doorbell would be sufficient.
Of course kicking in the door means that if you're found guilty, you'll be left with a nice big bill for repair of your property as well as all your neighbours knowing that you're a "wrong 'un", so really it's just a piece of pre-emptive retaliation by our wonderful Police.
"A reasoned objection"...?
What kind of moron tries to stifle responses to his post by, straight off the bat, trying to deny the fundamental issue with a phrase like "Let's put to one side the issue of whether unlimited should mean unlimited"?
When a supplier uses a word like "unlimited" and then, in short order, starts putting limits on it the expression "Bait and Switch" comes to mind, so for a "reasoned objection" how about basic advertising standards?
If a business is going to offer a service, they should be *able* to provide the service *as advertised*, so claiming to offer an "unlimited" service and then relying on "weasel clauses" in the small print (it's only unlimited as long as you don't actually try to *use* it that way) is deceptive advertising just as "up to XX megabits" is (you can only get "up to" that if nobody else is using the connection).
Bleating that "it's not our fault, it's the fault of some customers who won't play fair" doesn't get past the fact that the company *LIED* in the first place.
You do not have the right...
... to not be offended!
Or for drivers...
... it might give you a hint to actually *LOOK* for bikers instead of pulling out because you don't see any cars and then utter the pathetic cry of "Sorry, Mate, I Didn't See You"...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- OnePlus One cut-price Android phone on sale to all... for 1 HOUR