4510 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
@rules about using the US flag as a garment
Those "rules" are simply a set of statements made up by people who think that the US Flag should be venerated as some sort of sacred object.
They'd love to be able to introduce them into US law, but the Supreme Court has decided that Freedom of Expression trumps their wishes.
Have a look at some of the election episodes of the West Wing and you'll find that, yes, it really *is* that expensive to run for office in the USA, you need to pay huge amounts for "media buys" (ie advertisements) pay lots of staff to phone (and irritate) lots of people to find which issues you need to campaign on, have lots of advisers, do lots of travelling and much more besides.
BSG = "Hard SF"
For me the new version of BSG fits in the category of "Hard Sci-Fi" where the emphasis is (with a few "hand waving" exceptions eg FTL) on getting the science right which means that you can then concentrate on the story without having to worry about Treknobabble.
A ban on YouTube...?
Exactly whom will that inconvenience?!
(PS Yes, I know all the arguments about censorship etc, it's a *joke* ok?)
... that it is perfectly legal to buy a video or DVD from a European supplier (and have them post it to you here) which would be illegal to buy in the UK if it wasn't for sale in a licenced sex shop.
Film "Classification" is, of course, as you say, merely a form of censorship, it seems that our "powers that be" simply don't trust us to look at adult content without turning into rapists or murderers etc, so anything that is "too nasty" for our delicate sensibilities should be restricted to sale in sex shops or cut entirely.
'an alcoholic can say"no more booze for me", a drug addict "no more cake", and i assume a paedophile can control their urges and say "i'll not rape a child today nor will i look at kiddy porn on the old pc"'
What a wonderfully simplistic world it is that you live in! With a wish or a wave of a magic wand, suddenly everything is put to rights and we all live happily ever after. Unfortunately if you'd actually bother to *think* about matters and do a bit of research, you might find that it's not that easy.
Sure, anyone can say "no more", but that doesn't make the desire go away. Saying that "it's wrong" as if that is a solution in-and-of itself just shows that you have little or no idea of what addiction (physical or mental) actually entails.
What is needed is proper counselling/. support/ rehabilitation structure in place to reinforce that "no more", but who wants eg a drug clinic (let alone a rehabilitation centre for paedophiles) in their "back yard", especially someone who thinks that some crimes "cannot be forgiven nor forgotten" and who thereby forever damns anyone who *wants* to try to do something about their addiction!
I sense an incoming lawsuit!
I agree entirely with what you say, too much "law" in cases like this comes as the result of political grandstanding (especially in the USA where legal officials stand for election, so have to go for judgements which are media and public friendly) or greedy lawyers who have now gone from chasing ambulances to chasing the victims of abuse and exploiting them in another way.
The argument that looking at an image means "'the victim is abused again" and that, as such, the viewer is participating in the abuse makes as much sense as saying that watching video of the planes crash into the Twin Towers means you're guilty of participating in those attacks!
Also, as you say, in the USA, released offenders are effectively at the mercy of the mob because with their "Megan's Law" their names and addresses are published for all to find out to "protect" others. Unfortunately the upshot of this is that some estimates reckon that over a third of all released "sex offenders" in the USA have absconded, changed their names and moved without informing the authorities, whereas in the UK the Police know where over 97% of convicted offenders live.
It would be nice to have a sense of proportion brought into this debate, but whilst the Courts and the Media and the Politicians pander to the "evil paedos must be made to suffer and suffer again and again" no matter whether they actually abused a child or just looked at a (second hand/ third hand/ nth hand) image, that seems most unlikely.
@"Supply and Demand"
You claim that "the people who view them ARE the reason that they're distributed" but you miss the point that the original "demand" is from the person who *creates* the image, I think you'd find that most child pornographers don't do it for any financial gain, but to fulfill their own desires and they may then publish the images freely simply for kudos from other people with similar desires.
Of course, subsequently, others can collect those images and put them in paid websites, but that's separate from the original creation.
... being just a few days away from retirement if you're a law enforcement official
... It's not illegal to sound the horn in a stationary (or even parked) vehicle if a) it's on private land instead of the public highway or b) to alert another road user of a hazard (eg some idiot about to reverse into you)
Charges of "displaying contempt towards a public servant"???
If we had a law like that in the UK most of the population would be guilty!
This is the Daily Mail...
... since when did the facts have anything to do with one of our rants?
@I don't get it
Consider a situation where, for some reason, traffic bunches up causing cars to come to a halt.
Now imagine that that creates a "block" of stationary traffic 100 metres long.
If the cause of the original blockage then goes away, traffic can leave the "block", however if traffic is *arriving* at the block at the same rate as traffic leaves, the block will remain.
If, however, you slow down the traffic arriving at the block, it will dissipate.
Of course this relies on people believing and obeying the "slow down" signs, however *that* relies on the Highways Agency *switching off* the signs when they are no longer needed. (For example a few days ago I was on the A3 coming out of Portsmouth and there was a big warning sign saying "Queue Ahead 40mph", but there was no queue to be seen.
These "cry wolf" signs left running without purpose don't benefit anyone.
Looking at Section 1.2 of the report it says:
"Most risks are encountered by less than a quarter of children"
"The most common risks reported by children online are communicating with new people not met face-to-face and seeing potentially harmful user-generated content. It is much rarer for children to meet a new online contact offline or be bullied online."
"Significantly, risk does not often result in harm, as reported by children. Being bullied online by receiving nasty or hurtful messages is the least common risk but is most likely to upset children."
"Sexual risks – seeing sexual images and receiving sexual messages online – are more encountered but they are experienced as harmful by few of the children who are exposed to them"
"1 in 12 children have met an online contact offline; this risk rarely has a harmful experience."
"Among those children who have experienced one of these risks, parents often don’t realise this [...] Although the incidence of these risks affects a minority of children in each case, the
level of parental underestimation is more substantial."
In other words, the kids *are* pretty much alright, but the parents are ignorant and need to take a bit more notice of what their kids are up to online.
"the CPS' decision whether to charge will be based on..."
... First, prosecutors judge whether the evidence against the defendant offers a realistic chance of conviction.
... Second, they decide if a prosecution would be in the public interest.
Someone forgot to mention Third: Whether the Old Boy Back-Scratching Network has been at work and with a nudge and a wink and a funny handshake and the offer of a few Directorships here and there and some lucrative contracts and "consultancy fees" tossed in as well sufficient pressure will be applied such that the decision will come back "Sorry, we haven't got enough evidence to convict anyone..."
@The Fuzzy Wotnot
Whilst I agree with your point about it being another excuse for more databases, I had to down-vote you because of your subsequent comments.
Many (if not most) Social Services Departments are overworked, underpaid and demoralised because of comments like yours and criticisms in the media. They are staggering under a ridiculous caseload with insufficient staff numbers and get hammered every time something goes wrong when they have to make a decision between keeping families together ("Social Services Rip Child from Parent's Arms") and protecting a child ("Why Was This Innocent Child Left With These Terrible People?")
I think the money that will end up being spent on another database would be better used to support the Social Workers who are trying to do a thankless job for people who don't understand.
... a statement from the Department of Realising the Bloody Obvious!
As Lewis Page wrote in El Reg a year or so ago, there are numerous ways that terrorists *could* launch attacks on Aircraft, Airports and many other such things, yet, somehow, those attacks haven't happened.
This is just another demonstration that the "Security Threat" we are being peddled by fear-mongers who see it as a way to increase their little empires is grossly over-exaggerated and it's about time we took a big step back and looked *sensibly* at the situation.
... block Google Analytics and DoubleClick using NoScript and AdBlock Plus, then use RefControl to ensure *you* determine what information gets passed on.
Well that's a ringing condemnation from a Watchdog who hasn't the teeth to actually *bite* anyone...
@You work for google right?
Are you addressing me? It's really not clear.
But if you are, no, I don't work for Google, however I do live in the UK where you have the right to take photographs of virtually anything you like if you can see it from a public place (exceptions being eg Ministry of Defence property), you don't need someone's permission to take photographs of them, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph a building and the idea that somehow you can demand royalties is ridiculous even if it is an "original creative work".
It doesn't matter whether you're the Media, Google or Joe Bloggs, (let alone the Metropolitan Police) *NOBODY* has the right to stop you taking pictures.
And as for your irrelevant Straw Man argument of "your defending a multi-national corporation dodging taxes", I'll treat that with the contempt it deserves.
PS In the UK we *do* have the right to a) see our credit records (for a nominal charge) and b) *demand* that any errors be fixed on them. Perhaps you need to get your elected representatives to start *representing* you, instead of the people who paid for their campaigns...
No other 'private' company...
... would be able to roam the streets and take pictures of everyone.
Erm, have you never watched TV news reports or anything else showing street scenes?
Despite what the UK Plod want you to believe there is *NO LAW* preventing you or anyone else (even a 'private' company) from taking pictures of anything you like.
"should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."
Not to mention the careers of US politicians and high ranking officers?
And what when it's the US putting the lives of its partners or innocent civilians at risk...?
(PS The Pentagon has admitted in an internal letter that *NOBODY* has been harmed as a result of the previous set of documents published on Wikileaks)
I'm sure it's easy to find out how to do this...
... just Google for the information!
Is your memory really that short?
Blair and Brown their New Labour cronies dug us into a huge financial hole and you think we should have elected them *AGAIN*???
Look at a bit of history...
... for the vast majority of their existence humans have lived in one room dwellings with a whole extended family, parents, grandparents, teenagers, children all in the same space. Do you think mummy and daddy turfed everyone else out when they wanted to make a new baby?
How many people who don't read El Reg...
... actually have the slightest idea what "Sandboxing" is?
Will this be the default mode or as the phrase "offer sandboxing" suggests, something that can be switched on? If so, how many people will actually turn it on if they don't understand it?
Does it contain cherubs or large urns?
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded weak even to him, so he added, “or a plinth. Both is best, o’ course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
- Thud by Terry Pratchett
"we believe it to be wrong"
"So *YOU* aren't allowed to see it because *WE* don't trust you to behave like sensible adults.
("Us? Oh, we're morally pure, upright citizens, so we can make those judgments for you, Nanny knows best....")
Erm, did Blair and Brown's regimes pass you by...?
You miss the point
I fully agree with the sentiments of "I disagree with what you say..." however with the Right of Freedom of Expression comes the Responsibility to use it sensibly.
Posting messages (as this idiot did) with the *deliberate intent* to cause others distress goes way beyond the limits of responsible comment, consider the difference between my saying "I don't agree with what you're saying" and "Hey, everyone, let's go around to DT's house and give him a good kicking for saying this!"
"an American perspective"
ie don't worry about fixing problems, just find someone to sue!
You've just got to love the irony!
Once again the authorities demonstrate their complete lack of competence in dealing with modern technology and end up having rings run around them by everyone else.
I wonder if there's been a tweet of "drunk bloke driving jaguar crashed. he gave me funny handshake so i let him off with a warning"?
Or "saw bunch of chavs burgling house but was too busy nicking car driver for 33 mph in 30 limit on empty road"?
"... because I could see the writing was on the wall and I was going to get the push anyway. So now I can sit here and say "Won't Someone Think of Me... erm... I mean The Children!" and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being "pro-paedo" because what they are doing is not what *I* say is "best for children" and after Operation Ore etc I should know!"
Go, go now and try not to let the door hit your arse on the way out!
@Are you dense?
Given that you're posting as AC, I have no idea if you're the same AC that came out with the nonsense of "Let's can it. Then you can walk your daughter's class to the local post office. You and previously convicted paedophiles." or not.
Presuming you are, however, you've totally missed the point I was making that a record of a "prior conviction" *WILL* include such miscarriages of justice as the Operation Ore Cautions which were induced because of inadequate "standards of proof".
So innocent and harmless people will be barred from working with children because they've been tainted with false accusations by Gamble and co.
Oh, and calling someone a "deluded wingnut" etc etc really doesn't add anything to the validity of your argument...
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?