4904 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"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.
Would the American Moral Minority...
... consider an App saying that we can "cure" extremist Christians of their bigotry to be acceptable?
I doubt it!
Does this sound more like...
... desperate publicity seeking...?
"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...
Europe - Does this comply with data protection?
US - Yes.
Europe - Why?
US - Because we say so.
Europe - Ok, that's good enough for us!
"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?
"banning the filming of assaults"
Of course I have little doubt that this will apply to any sort of CCTV setup, especially when operated by the Police...
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...
... they're introducing them in Midsomer...?!
"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.
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!"
"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.
... please solve the P versus NP problem...
... Goodbye Cruel World by Pink Floyd...
Quick, call Facebook!!
"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.
"Describe in single words...
".. only the good things that come into your mind about... a Blade Runner sequel."
"A Blade Runner sequel?"
"Let me tell you about a Blade Runner sequel...."
Blofeld did it first!
Would be very useful for certain areas of the Adult Industry...!
@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'"
... Hammer Time!
... Certain members of "Team Register" need to look up the meaning of the fallacy "Poisoning the Well"
... Ms Streisand...!
And there is one thing I can't tolerate...
... which is people's instant knee-jerk thoughtless reaction to an accusation that someone is abusing children (or providing such images) or that it's obviously copyright infringement without actually thinking "we've only got the Police's word for this".
"everyone knows how porn is used"
"If “everybody knows” such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one." - Lazarus Long (via Robert A Heinlein).
Once again I mention that I make leather bondage gear. There are times when I've seen something on a website etc that has made me go "Damn, I never thought of that, what a great idea for a new product...!"
Who says you can't enjoy Business Research? :-)
Belle de Jour was an *escort* not a pornographer and she's a Research Scientist with specialisations in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology, she has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science.
Let me see: ignorant person makes Straw Man argument based on their own lack of knowledge. Colour me unsurprised...!
... take a lesson from another Stanley Kubrick film and play "Try a Little Tenderness"
"We hoped the company would promise...
"... a future version of the prosthetic with limited precognition, allowing it to walk the owner away from unseen danger. But it didn't."
Thank Zarquon for that! Remember the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Happy Vertical People Transporters?
Imagine what would happen if your artificial leg suddenly decided it wanted participation in the direction decision making process and went on strike or started walking in the opposite direction...
(Mine's the one with the book in the pocket that has "Don't Panic" written in large friendly letters on the cover)
I like to think of the Brig like King Arthur
Remember the Sylvester McCoy story Battlefield? The Doctor was Merlin, Ace was the Lady of the Lake, so who was the Brigadier...?
@Sechin needs to brush up on his sources
Perhaps he should have googled for them...
"The sentences given will be a warning...
"... to anyone considering committing this type of fraud"
Does *anyone* really believe this sort of bollocks?
People commit this sort of fraud because they think they can get away with it, if they didn't, they wouldn't do it. They don't give a toss about any potential sentence they may get.
But, as usual, the people who *actually* get away scot free are the ones who had such lax security measures in place that the fraud could happen in the first place!
Well it would...
... if it wasn't the same sort of skewed and nonsensical rationale which means that, in the UK, under the Dangerous Pictures Act an image taken from a film can be illegal even if the film itself isn't!
(Oh and the same goes for the "Dangerous Cartoons" Act...)
@Pete and Dud?
Whilst it does sound a bit like Pete and Dud, it's actually Fred Colon and Nobby Nobbs! :-)
... it always was a crap idea.
(Oh come on, *someone* had to say it!)
Anyone remember the old Dragon's Lair video disk game?
Not to denigrate this guy's achievement at all, but the moves on DL were a fixed sequence such that I could stand with my back to the machine, hands behind me and all I'd need was for someone to say "Ok, it's the Lizard King starting to the left" and I could go through the whole level without looking :-)
@UNTIL YOU WENT AND LOOKED FOR IT !
Ah, but you have to remember that it's just *knowing* that it's out there which is the problem!
People like Wacky Jacqui simply *cannot* bear the idea of others looking at things they don't like, hence the desire to pass the legislation like the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Cartoons acts.
It's laughable that she says "The internet service providers need to take more responsibility." err, no Jacqui it's *YOU* who needs to take more responsibility and understand that everyone else *also* needs to take responsibility for what they (or their children) look at. We don't need your Nanny State saying "We think this is bad for you, so *you* are not allowed to see it".
" I don't agree with the argument that...
"... if we restrict anything available on the internet we'll turn into China."
Of course not, Jacqui, just like you never agreed with *anything* that didn't fit with your own personal set of prejudices and bigotry, but you still thought that your personal tastes ought to govern what everyone else is allowed to see and read...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Updated HIDDEN packet sniffer spy tech in MILLIONS of iPhones, iPads – expert
- RISE of the Jesus Phone MOUNTAIN: 80 MILLION 'Air' iPhone 6s ordered
- Students hack Tesla Model S, make all its doors pop open IN MOTION
- BBC goes offline in MASSIVE COCKUP: Stephen Fry partly muzzled
- PROOF the Apple iPhone 6 rumor mill hype-gasm has reached its logical conclusion