4667 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Or – perhaps even better –
No more pilots hopped up on Amphetamines as the US military has been wont to do to keep their pilots alert at the cost of impairing their judgement and causing friendly fire incidents because you can swap the "pilot" during a long mission.
@You can't hit what you can't see
So you launch a spotter aircraft or drone or you use satellites to locate your targets...
"this rate of firing would leave little juice left for propulsion"
So cue the SF cliche of the "Big Weapon" that you dare not use because to do so will leave you dead in the water until your power recharges...!
At a guess I'd say you wind in the wires, perform a standard gravitational sling-shot manoeuvre and then, when you're past Jupiter, extend the wires again and (possibly) get a double push. Sorted.
"thing [sic] of the children"?
Are you planning on bringing back castrati too?!
Very nice, but...
... it's not complete until you can tune it to "Open E" and play "Smoke on the Water"!
Surely you mean Stilsuit!
@Ahhh, the irony!
First of all you make the mistake of thinking that the "online porn industry" is the same as the online *adult* industry (it's not) and secondly trying to compare the tobacco companies who *knew* that their product was harmful to people to either is utter nonsense since despite many years of trying, *nobody* has provided any scientifically verifiable proof that porn or adult content actually causes any harm at all.
The vast majority of the adult industry has no desire to "inflict" its product on anyone who doesn't want to see it, unlike the "moral minority" who want to inflict *their* views on everyone by saying that "we should be the ones who decide what is or isn't safe or acceptable for you to view".
If you want to make sure that you don't see porn, invest in the free blocking software that is available. If you want to make sure your children don't see it, take some RESPONSIBILITY for the upbringing of your offspring.
@Prefer truth in advertising?
Once again I have to point out the flaw in this argument.
I run a business making bondage gear. I don't have "porn" on my site, but I do have "adult content" (the difference, if you want to make one, being that it's not designed to encourage you to wank over it, but to buy the products)
I already have had to register and pay for a bunch of domains based on my Affordable Leather Products business name (the only one I don't have, .com, is currently sitting parked and doing nothing because someone wants to sell it for over three thousand dollars!) if there's an .xxx domain as well, I'm going to have to register *another* one and probably, because it's .xxx that's going to be at a premium price because, "well, it's porn, so we can charge more for it, can't we?" and that's presuming, of course, someone doesn't try to cybersquat on it before I can buy it!
I'm not being "untruthful" by having a .co.uk domain instead of a .xxx domain, but it's certainly going to cost me more even though I already have a "Warning - Adult Content" front page and the site is registered with Cyber Sitter, Net Nanny and so on.
Let's hear it for electronic pick-pocketing...
Thieves now have the capabilities to steal your credit card information without laying a hand on your wallet.
So what would you prefer...?
Bandwidth throttling? DPI and Net non-neutrality?
If you built a motorway network and businesses started huge lorries along it, breaking up the surface and causing congestion for other users, would you consider it unreasonable to ask those businesses to contribute to the cost of upkeep or would you think it better that those businesses' traffic be diverted to slower roads?
... Vote Fascist for a third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!
"The call of some bird from Newcastle"
Which sounds approximately like "Nahleevimkevin'eeaintworfit!"
@we MUST rely on the authorities
Sure, *IF* they would do their jobs properly, however for someone to be charged they have the *RIGHT* under the European Convention on Human Rights to be notified of the details of what they are being charged with in a language that they understand.
Julian Assange does not understand Swedish, so the Authorities have screwed up at the first hurdle.
Facebook revamp gives away even more info
And in other news...
(You know the rest)
@Terrorist Target List
I watched a fascinating interview on BBC News 24 yesterday after comments from Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox condemning the latest "criminal" leaks about "an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security"
They had the former US Assistant Head of Homeland Security on whose attitude was a lot more relaxed and saying things like "I don't think terrorists are going to attack eg the Port of Rotterdam simply because the US considers it a 'choke point' in transatlantic trade" and commenting that many of these facilities are more of *economic* interest because to swap to alternatives would cost more money.
Methinks someone doth protest too much!
When Jim Gamble said...
... "Today’s decision by the Court of Appeal draws a line under the efforts of a small number of individuals who, over the past ten years, have perpetuated conspiracy theories about Operation Ore."
He failed to mention that even the Appeal Court Judges said that their decision was based *SOLELY* on this case. "This appeal has addressed one ultimate issue and one only, namely whether the appellant’s conviction is or is not safe. Different prosecutions, and different convictions, involved different issues. We are concerned with the issues relating to the appellant’s conviction only."
Still, when did Jim Gamble ever worry about ensuring the facts were correct...?
The point, of course, being that those "interesting debates" you refer to require *scientific* evidence to support conclusions otherwise they're nothing more than talking shops.
If our Government isn't going to *listen* to that scientific advice, the whole exercise is pointless.
This is the same evidence that Police experts had "serious doubts" about?
'Peter Johnston, a former computer crime officer for Merseyside Police, told ITV News that officers rounded up people whose details had been linked to internet child pornography despite doubts over their guilt.
'He said: “There then came the calls of ‘let’s get out, let’s get them locked up, let’s get these people off the streets, you can’t have paedophiles wandering round the streets’. My view, and it’s purely my own view, is that yes there was a witch hunt.” '
Yet, according to the Press Association:
'Dismissing the challenge, the judge said: "There is no real possibility that a reasonable jury, faced with the evidence we have considered, would not conclude that he was the person responsible for the transactions in issue. We have no doubt whatsoever as to the safety of his conviction."'
I would like to find out what exactly ensured they had "no doubt" in this case, was it because APACS and the banks said "Oh, no, Your Honour, our systems are entirely safe, there's no way that anyone could commit a credit card fraud like this, it must have been the card holder who did it" and the Judges replied "Ok, that's good enough for us"?
"it’s clear that WikiLeaks...
"...doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content"
Err, which part of Wiki *LEAKS* didn't you understand when you took their money for hosting...??
@they thought they lived in the "Garden Flat"
I once lived in a house that had been converted into three flats. Out of interest, having had problems with a credit card application, I did some checking with the Post Office, credit reference agencies etc and found no less than *TEN* addresses related to the property: Garden Flat, Basement Flat, Hall Floor Flat, Ground Floor Flat, Top Flat, Flat 1, Flat 2, Flat 3, Number 59 and the name of the Guest House that was converted to flats!
"Rumours from Zurich...
"... suggest voters punished England for its media's "hostile" coverage of allegations of corruption at Fifa"
Except why didn't Putin attend? Maybe he knew the votes were already bought and paid for...!
(Not that I give a crap anyway)
I'LL JUST WRITE ALL MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS FROM NOW ON, OK!
The CAPITALS gag wasn't particularly FUNNY the FIRST TIME.
Now it's just getting TEDIOUS!
I'll believe it when I see it...
... People who go into Government work have little experience or knowledge of the real business world which is why they constantly get shafted (and, by inference, get us shafted) by wily businesses who create massively unbalanced contracts where all the value goes to the business and all the costs go to the Government.
Of course it doesn't help when even the people who *should* know better (Alastair Darling comes to mind) sign contracts with massive penalty clauses which mean that it's cheaper to throw more public money into them than try to cancel the worthless contract.
"If gays wanted to be taken more seriously they would stop acting like spoiled children when they don't get their way each and every time and learn to listen to those who oppose and work toward a workable solution"
And WTF is this "workable solution" you speak of? Most gays (and, indeed, others who enjoy forms of "alternative sexuality") simply want other people to *MIND THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS* and stop trying to tell them what they should or shouldn't do based on the critics' view of what is "right and proper".
The majority of gays don't make arrogant pronouncements like this guy has, they just want to be left alone to live their own lives in peace and quiet, but if some prat opens their big mouth and starts implying that eg gay = paedophile then they get all the derision they deserve.
"a very junior soldier indeed who holds the lowest rank in the US Army's enlisted structure...
"...shouldn't have been able to trawl as much classified information as he allegedly did."
No shit, Sherlock!
Thanks for the list!
I've got most of those installed, but I can see there's a couple I'm missing.
It's just a shame that the *user* has to put so much effort into ensuring their privacy instead of being *asked* whether they want their details and browsing habits tracked :-(
"These are classified documents...
"...they are classified because their release could cause harm to the state, and or individuals therein."
I've heard it said (although I can't find a cite at the moment) that the menus for the meals served at Number 10 used to be Classified as "Secret"!
The Yanks are more worried because the release of these documents could cause harm to the careers of individuals in their Government.
... "England? Isn't that in London?"
As a very short sighted wearer of glasses...
... I'll opt for Contact Lenses any day, but I wouldn't want to swap to a different pair just to watch TV!
Re: @Consumer Credit Act to the rescue?
I don't know who has downvoted me, however if it is because I said that the CCA doesn't apply to PayPal, I quote Which? Magazine who point out that: "Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act doesn't apply to Paypal transactions."
See http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/online-shopping/paypal---your-rights/paypal-protection-problems/ for details.
@Consumer Credit Act to the rescue?
Unfortunately, as with services like PayPal etc, the Card Companies will argue that they held up their end of the deal when they delivered your money to the payment system and anything that happens after that is not their problem :-(
In Apple Time
California is GMT -8 hours, so 2:30am should be 6:30pm there (assuming no different Daylight Savings in effect)
The "consultation is shorter than normal and is not being run in a way that encourages public engagement."
What? Governments running "consultations" that are rigged to ensure that they get the answer they want? Never!
... let's forget about presumption of innocence, let's forget about the fact that hosts may not *know* that this stuff is on their servers, let's not bother with saying "will you take this stuff down?" let's just put on the jackboots and kick in their doors/ take away their domain names and then leave them with the bill for sorting the mess out.
Let's take down anything that you and the Nanny State don't like, whilst we Think Of The Children!
"satisfy yourselves that those seeking to place advertisements are genuine concerns"
And how will they get this "satisfaction"...?!
Seriously, though, the sort of nonsensical language coming out of the Met is as bad as the last Government's idea of getting members of the WI to write to newspapers etc as "concerned citizens" worried about whether some of the adverts in the back of their publications might be exploiting trafficked women in the hope that it would deter them from accepting the ads in the first place.
For Richard Martin to say "criminal liability can arise in certain circumstances where evidence clearly shows that the advertising in question supports or promotes offences associated to trafficking, exploitation or proceeds of crime" is a barely veiled threat implying that the publishers will, somehow, be liable if the Police find out an escort agency etc is offering women who are forced into the work against their will, but this is as ridiculous as prosecuting the paper if someone starts flogging stolen goods through the Small Ads because obviously the publishers should have checked to see if the goods were kosher before they accepted the ad...
"Kids statistically will turn out better...
"if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart."
And I fail to see how this version of the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!!!" argument has *anything* to do with the subject under discussion.
This has nothing to do with children, it is to do with the right of *adults* to make up their *own* minds what they do with their bodies and their lives.
Your comment about "blind liberals" suggests that you're just a "reactionary conservative" who will automatically say "no, no, no!" to anything that you don't like on the grounds that "I don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to do it" and this is backed up where you claim that "gambling, hookers, drugs" are "common sense bad things" and then claim that "they are proven by studies to cause more problems that solutions" which is utter nonsense.
The only "studies" that "prove" this are ones that have been set up by people like the Poppy Project who have a vested interest (like you) in banning something they don't like and they will use any dubious methodology and skewed results to back up their questionable claims.
"Since when is legalising hookers a good thing"? Since, as with any form of prohibition, people have begun to realise that banning something *doesn't* make it go away, in fact it just drives it and the people involved *into* the hands of criminals and takes away the protections which they should be entitled to under the law.
That is real "common sense", you just cannot (or will not) understand it.
Police Squad - In Color!
This show was brilliant, from the death of the famous actor "special guest" at the start to the "freeze frame" gag at the end and not forgetting the Red Rock cider ads that riffed off it years later.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a Daily Mail reader, eh? Yeah, sure.
I think you rather miss the point, though, you say "While we may not like everything our governments do, at least in this part of the World we have the opportunity to say so, publicly." but this is not enough, because they are doing it *IN OUR NAMES* and we should know what they are doing "for" us and be able to hold them to account instead of having it brushed under the carpet with a "Secret" tag on it.
And for you to suggest that Assange should "avoid dark alleyways" just reinforces this: You seem to think that it is OK for our "democratic" Governments to harm those who call them to account and show what they are up to. But I suppose that's ok, because it's for our own good, isn't it??
The future is here...
... if you want peace through superior firepower...
The AM-15 holds up to a 275 round magazine!
... because of the *other* idiots who think that, by regulating the internet, they'll be able to protect the first lot of idiots who are gullible enough to fall for this scam!
... Avenue Q for more details!
Dialling area codes
I use 1899.com (because it's a damn sight cheaper without needing to pay for an over-priced bundle package!) so I dial an area code for all local numbers anyway.
It's not hard.
Nominet said it will consider creating an appeals process
Before they create an appeals process, how about they create a process where they actually *LOOK* at the sites that the Police want to censor and *CHECK* to see if anything illegal is going on there instead of saying "Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir, we'll take it down right away on your say-so and then deal with the poor sod on the other end whose business might end up being wrecked"
I started using compatibles...
... because of my Epson printer's habit of, even when I select "black only", still using the colour inks (which I rarely use) and I was finding that I was having to replace an entire set of Cyan, Magenta and Yellow cartridges without *ever* printing anything in colour!
I also use a chip resetter because I can get an extra 20-30 pages of printing from a cartridge that the printer says is "empty".
I've very rarely had any problems with the compatibles, if I do, a quick swap to the cleaning cartridge sorts it out and I count the savings...
This just shows a lack of imagination...
After all there's a whole spectrum of colours, so how about alert levels including Puce, Taupe, Salmon Pink, Tangerine, Tea Rose, Fire Engine Red which would allow precise shadings(!) of meaning of each level!
(Mine's the one of many colors ;-) )
Miss Charlotte T.Harlotte likes...
... Acacia Avenue Genito-Urinary Medical Centre...
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked