4515 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
Nemesysco [..] threatened to sue the journal for libel
Whilst providing evidence that their system did work at a level "better than chance", of course.
What? They didn't show any evidence?
But surely they must have *tested* the thing under controlled conditions before making their claims that it would reliably "detect lies"...???
Again you don't get it.
You ask "Why is it a good idea to allow shops to sell adult rated games to kids?" when what you should be asking is "Why is it a good idea to have a law forbidding shops to sell adult rated games to kids?" with the concommitant legal penalties etc that such a law would include.
And pardon me if I don't waste my time addressing your silly "murder should be legal" Straw Man argument.
Think you've run out of arguments...
... that's why you're running away from this one with a desperate grab for the Burden of Proof Fallacy (not to mention a pathetic attempt to imply that because I disagree with you, I must have kiddie porn on my hard drive).
It is not up to me to come up with a "better term" for "making" here, it's up to you to demonstrate that this is actually "making" something, a term which I think most people would generally accept to imply "creating an original work", ie in this case actually taking photographs of a child, which is clearly not what is happening.
You're right, you don't get it.
The point is that the ESA wants parents to be *responsible* for what their children do and buy and play, not the State or the retail industry.
... then you start equipping them with lasers and guided missiles and directed EMP weapons... ;-)
They should have read Discworld...
... then they would have known that almost all Wizards come in the "oversized" category!
(Who owns this robe with "Born to Rune" on the back...?)
You've got to love the hypocrisy...
"Mister Speaker! Our Government started large numbers of unworkable, irrelevant or downright misguided IT projects most of which have gone massively overbudget without showing any usable results. Would the current Government like to comment on how we are now accusing *them* of wasting public money by cancelling them?"
I notice you don't mention the *cars* which tailgate motorcyclists like me at a distance so close that I first thought there was something wrong with my top box when I looked in my mirrors, only then to realise that there was a 4x4 sitting about ten feet from my rear wheel!
Nor do you mention the classic SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) as a motorist pulls out of a junction because they don't see the motorbike coming.
The DFTs own research states "Of the total cases, 681 (38%) involve ROWVs [Right of Way Violations]. However, less than 20% of these involve a motorcyclist who rated as either fully or partly to blame for the accident."
"the most common failure of other drivers in motorcycle accidents is a failure in the continuity of their observation of the road scene. Over 65% of ROWV accidents where the motorcyclist is not regarded as to blame involve a driver who somehow fails to see a motorcyclist who should be in clear view, and, indeed, frequently is in view to witnesses or other road users in the area."
"The main conclusions of our research are as follows:
"• A way must be found of targeting the other parties who so frequently cause motorcycle collisions. Drivers have to be made aware of the numerous ways that they can fail to perceive a motorcycle in the typical ROWV accidents that are most frequently not the fault of the rider involved. Our results suggest that interventions should be focused on (but not exclusively confined to) older drivers."
So before you start slagging off bikers, I suggest you consider the log in your own eye!
I, in no way, support or condone kiddie porn or the abuse of children etc,, but did he actually take any photos himself, or is this the BS of "downloading a picture or video is classed as 'making' it"?
... what's good for Microsoft is good for the whole world...
I'm pretty sure it's a sex crime in the UK...
... to be in your back garden, naked, playing a game.
Actually it's not.
IANAL, but quoting the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, he observes another person doing a private act, and
(b)he knows that the other person does not consent to being observed for his sexual gratification.
So if someone is in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, they can be nude without problem, but if someone's peeping at them and getting their jollies from this then that person will be committing an offence.
If they can't get the development stopped, I suggest they invest in some Leylandii.
There are always risks...
... many years ago some friends were burgled when they were on holiday. It turned out that the kid who delivered their newspaper was telling his father which people had cancelled their delivery for a couple of weeks whilst they were away...
Admittedly this isn't as daft as announcing it to world + dog on your all-too-public status page, though.
You could delete the world "prudishness"...
... and still have a valid article.
Somehow the Yanks have got the idea that they "own the internet" and can dictate to everyone else what is or isn't acceptable content which is more than a little ironic given their First Amendment!
Of course, as with many others, what they really mean by "Freedom of Expression" is "Freedom to say or show things that *we* agree with".
Do not worry, fleshy ones...
... we have no plans to kill or enslave you all and take over the world for ourselves!
"if you don't do something with it?"
I don't give a toss what you do with it, just do it *EFFICIENTLY*!
I stay out of the "Global Warming is Man Made", "No it isn't!", "Yes it is!" nonsense and just point out that if we start using that "great big puddle of oil" in a more efficient manner (instead of burning huge amounts in gas-guzzling 4x4s...) then we will, ipso facto, reduce the amount of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere *as well as* delaying the point at which those finite resources run out.
In other words, a win-win situation!
Coppers' Protection Service...
Then you turn on the control laser and...
Erm, perhaps he could have phrased that better?!
Why didn't they hand it in...?
Because if they had, the Police would have just gone "Phew! That was a close one, but not *learned* anything from the experience!"
Each story like this just illustrates the complete ignorance of basic security provisions by those who are supposed to *protect* our security and until they get the message, there will be yet more such stories.
First of all give England players a new contract...
... No win, no fee!
Tell me, exactly how many crosswords do you do? (NB I'm talking cryptic crosswords, not the quick one in The Sun...)
Using a dictionary or thesaurus is not "looking up the answer in a book", it is a way of finding the precise definition or shade of meaning that the compiler has used which is often deliberately obscure or oblique.
For instance if a compiler uses the word "neat" in a clue eg "Neat offspring (4)" it may be in the sense of "clean, tidy, orderly", but it could also be the archaic term for "a domestic bovine animal" [Collins]
Now if you've never heard the second definition before, you're going to be stuck until you pick up a good dictionary and go "Aha! That was what it means, so the offspring of a neat is a calf!"
Implying that this is somehow "cheating" simply shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Dear AC, which site do *you* run?
"I have yet to speak to a single fellow website owner in the adult world who is against this."
Really? And exactly how many have you spoken to? Because I, as just one website owner who supplies adult products am entirely against this as a waste of time and energy which will just increase my costs, add extra bureaucratic hassle which I don't need and do *NOTHING* to benefit my business.
I think you will find it is only a vocal minority who are in favour of this.
As for: "For others that do not have such a good domain name, this is good news."
Is it really? Do you think that someone who has anyadultdomain.co.uk will get preferential treatment if .xxx is brought in and will be the first person allow to register anyadultdomain.xxx?
Of course not, what will happen is a frantic "land grab" where the cybersquatters and domain resellers will bombard the system with applications for all the "good" domain names (and probably every other adult related domain name they can find and then offer to sell them to legitimate businesses for many thousands of pounds or dollars more than the $60 registration fee they paid.
@Sly and Tim Bates
Once again I have to point out that whilst my site might deal with BDSM gear, it is *less* "pornographic" that what you can legally buy off the top shelves of newsagents.
So should I be compelled to ditch affordable-leather.co.uk and re-register as affordable-leather.xxx because my product images offend your delicate sensibilities?
Or should I do (as I have already mentioned) put appropriate warnings, register with blocking services etc and expect *YOU* as (presumably) responsible parents to do *YOUR* job of protecting *YOUR* children from material that *YOU* don't like instead of you wanting *ME* to do the job for you?
Yes, I'm sure...
... (even though IANAL) because my contract is with the *retailer* not with the company who makes the game (this is why, if something breaks then, under the Sale of Goods Act, I can go back to the person who sold it to me for redress and not be fobbed off with "it's not our problem, talk to the manufacturer").
Now if the retailer were to say to me "We cannot sell this item to you unless you agree to this EULA here and now" they might have a case, but not otherwise.
.xxx gives members of the adult industry the opportunity to self-identify
You mean my putting "Adults Only" and "18+" and including related tags on my site and registering with Net Nanny, Cybersitter et al isn't "self-identifying" enough?
See the Unfair Contract Terms Act for details:
11 The “reasonableness” test
(1)In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M1 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M2 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.
As mentioned by AC, the contract is made when a price is agreed and money is exchanged. Unless the EULA forms part of that it is not "reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
Exactly *how* is using a dictionary (or a thesaurus) "cheating" when doing a crossword?
Using a word finder would be, using a crossword solver would be, but not using a dictionary or thesaurus to check a definition or find the right "shade" of meaning to crack a compiler's clue.
"Is this true devolution and a necessary tidying up of outdated laws...
"...or a charter for busybodies and control freaks to regulate the minutiae of our everyday lives?"
What do you think?? Why should something be an offence in one place but not in another? Surely if it's causing problems in City A it will also cause a problem in City B or C or D.
The whole idea of the creation of English Common Law was that there would be *ONE* set of rules for the whole country, ones that were (supposedly) fair and equitable and subject to proper scrutiny (yes, ok, I know that New Labour did their best to avoid that, but that was the original idea).
By all means get rid of old laws, but allowing local councils to introduce new ones is just because some prod-nose gets a bee in their bonnet and manages to persuade others to go along with them doesn't mean that the situation will get any better.
You are free to believe what you want, provided you don't start trying to tell everyone that *they* should believe it too.
Books are a technology which does not become obsolete!
Yes, you can get more onto a CD/ DVD/ whatever, yes they are easier to transport etc, but a 20 year old copy of the printed OED will still be usable whilst a 20 year old copy in an electronic format (remember the 1980's Domesday Book which was produced on 12" Laser disks and read by a BBC Master computer?) will have been surpassed by later technologies.
Convenience is all very well, but permanence should not be ignored.
if any of those things are around a blind corner, you run into them...
.... Assuming you can't stop in time or go around them.
If you can't stop in time or go around them then you are driving *TOO FAST* for the circumstances (NB this is not the same as speeding because you could be below the limit but on a slippery road or in situations where visibility is reduced)
Any computer controlled system *MUST* be able to adequately calculate the appropriate speed for the conditions and adjust it accordingly, otherwise it will be just as dangerous as drivers who think that 80mph is a safe speed on a foggy motorway...
@bigoted old buffoon
Your whole rant^H^H^H^H self-righteous position seems to be based on the same mentality of the previous Government's "vetting scheme" where everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Tell me, do you require that anyone who comes and babysits for *your* children allows you full access to their computer so you can check through and ensure that they don't have any "questionable" images on it? No? So you admit that *YOU* are jeopardising *YOUR* children by failing to take adequate precautions!!!
"...whether they would be prepared to accept road pricing as long as there was no overall increase in the amount paid by motorists as a whole"
And when they were asked how they felt knowing that every journey they took would be tracked and probably linked ANPR cameras would be used to automatically assign speeding tickets to anyone who went from A to B faster than they were supposed to they said...?
Oh, of course they didn't say anything, because they were *NEVER* asked those questions!!
"a turning point in the Pentagon's computer defense strategy"
So WTF were they doing between 2001 when Gary McKinnon showed how laughable US Military "Computer Security" was and 2008 when this attack happened...???
Again I recommend...
... firstly going to the Coalition's Your Freedom site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ and supporting the various proposals to throw this (and other laws such as the criminalisation of consensual BDSM) into the bin and, secondly, going to http://www.writetothem.com and making your MP aware of your objections to these stupid, ill-thought out and useless laws.