4997 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"It was a very different, very BRUTAL, world back then - to try and apply today's morality to it is just idiotic."
Yet there are those from the church who want to apply the morality of two thousand or more years ago to the world today!
Please, do us all a favour and don't let this discussion turn into an irrelevant Pro/ Anti Israel rant fest...
I wonder what would happen...
... if you googled for "Whitelist"...
Erm, perhaps they're not aware that that's a pretty good positive result already!!
Smoke and mirrors...
... would work to stop lasers just as well...! ;-)
I have to crouch to get through...
Clearly you're not aware that the correct position *is* bent over...!
... Yep, that's definitely a face, I'd recognise one anywhere!
... I bet you're also into scat as well...!
(NB to Commentards: If you don't get this joke, *do not* start searching for references. Or if you do, don't say I didn't warn you!)
... a wanker!
... all that's needed is for the bookies to have a stooge in the crowd with a noticeable banner/ flag/ brightly coloured shirt which gets removed/ waved/ covered over when they want an "accidental" no ball...
"just one weapon in an arsenal."
Compare and contrast a sniper's rifle and a shotgun...
... What's that in linguini?
If you want to cover this on a fansite...
.. you'd better believe that it's the greatest thing since the lightsabre.
Otherwise We'll find your lack of faith disturbing...
"The boxer, not the flying squirrel"
Damn, spoil my laughter, why don't you?
Unfortunately the Tories are probably too afraid of upsetting Middle England to risk trying to get rid of either the Dangerous Pictures (Extreme Porn) or Dangerous Cartoons laws :-(
"You can only put so much in one bill."
Really? See the last Government's "Christmas Tree" Bills where everybody got a chance to hang something on it, so much so that the majority of it was never debated by our elected representatives and even the Lords didn't have the time to go through it all.
As you say, the risk is that, once this (hopefully) goes through, any other such repeals/ reformations will be kicked into the long long grass with a "Well, we've spent a lot of time on this, so now we want to go on to something else".
Meanwhile people will still be open to arrest for dangerous pictures/ cartoons/ video clips of Tony the Tiger etc...
... they don't have the equivalent of the Women's Institute which the last Government tried to recruit to "protect women from exploitation" by writing strong letters to newspapers that had ads for Escorts?
"if police say...
"...they have reasonable grounds to believe they're being used for criminal activity"
Hmm, so what about those pesky things called "Evidence" and "Proof"? Show us those and we'll all say "yes, go ahead", but not simply "we believe..." because that is open to abuse (or vindictiveness or simple stupidity)
"we need to at least ask about what we could do."
Yes, but that involves people *taking responsibility* instead of saying "Oh dear, I don't like this, I wish someone else would do something because I don't know how/ can't be bothered to learn how/ don't want to know how because someone else should do it for me"...
As I've said in the past, I run a site selling Leather Bondage Gear, but my site is registered with Net Nanny, Cyber Sitter etc and has "Adults Only" and 18+ tags so that anyone who *chooses* to install and activate filters can block it.
Unfortunately there are those who think that we should *all* be treated as children and that the filters should be on *unless* we switch them off.
"the British 'way of protecting children' "
Which is as follows:
1) Some tragedy happens
2) The Tabloid Media get hold of it, distort the story and blow it out of all proportion and then start a campaign to "Ban This Filth"
3) A Publicity Grabbing MP will jump on the band-wagon and say that we need new laws to be put in place because there are "loopholes" in the old laws.
4) Parliament holds a "Consultation" which involves asking anyone who agrees to say "yes we agree" and ignores anyone who disagrees, then shoves a few new clauses into a "Christmas Tree" Bill (where everyone gets to hang something on it)
5) A stupidly vague and unenforceable law is passed which will do nothing to protect anyone, least of all kids however will end up criminalising people who would never do any harm but are now caught in the net and branded potential kiddy fiddlers.
6) Rinse and repeat...
... will they now try to prosecute the people who are discussing the Tweet...?!
See Steve Jobs...
... for more details!
... the Journalists could (without their knowledge) be set some research of their own.
Send them out for a Long Stand or maybe some Striped Paint or perhaps a Bucket of Nail Holes or even a Long Weight or many of the other old tricks played on the unwary...
Read the Overclockers post...
... "i payed for dead space 2 today. installed it and ran the game. went to settings, controls , to custom them, and guess what!!! theres no way to have the walk forward on a mouse button..."
He *has* a special controller adapted to his needs, but it's the *game* that doesn't allow the controls to be re-mapped so he can use them.
"the main causes of deaths and serious injuries to Australian drivers"
If drivers kill or seriously injure themselves through their own stupidity I have very little sympathy. It's the other road users and pedestrians who may be caught up in an accident through no fault of their own who deserve consideration.
It's clear that a "slap on the wrist" fine is *NOT* enough to stop people from behaving like idiots when in control of a vehicle and since it has been clearly shown it *is* as dangerous as driving when drunk, using a mobile whilst driving should be treated in the same way as drunk driving with similar attendant penalties/ bans/ imprisonment.
(And, just to forestall a predictable response: the only time that there is a possible excuse is if you are stuck in non-moving traffic on a motorway and there's no chance to legally pull over to make a call, but even then it should be limited to the most basic of communication that you'll be late, end of conversation.)
I think you ought to know...
... I'm feeling very depressed...
I have "on demand" TV...
... it's called Sky+ I record what I want to see, then watch it when I want to see it.
Currently I've got about 30 hours of programmes stacked up, I pick what I want to see when I feel like it.
It's not hard.
Bows and Arrows?
What's wrong with a traditional Boar Spear?
"You shoot small animals for fun? That's the first indicator of a serial killer, you freak!"
(c) Family Guy - Blue Harvest ;-)
... the question is simple: Do you treat everyone as adults or everyone as children?
Should we all be required to say "Please Sir, can I look at this" or should we say "If I have children *I* am the one responsible for their safety be it out in the big wide world or inside on the big World Wide Web...?
Re: If the Commission gets any more pro consumer
Well they could start by deciding that grey imports are *not* covered by Copyright and Trade Mark legislation!
Difficult? I hope you mean "impossible"...
... then you can wrap up the IWF entirely, close it down and stop trying to pretend that because *you* don't like something *WE* shouldn't be allowed to see it.
Obviously you and all the other IWF prod-noses are such paragons of Moral Virtue that you can see this "bad stuff" without being affected by it, but we are such Morally Bankrupt and Weak-Minded individuals that we will immediately go and and commit murders, rape children or commit any/ every other heinous crime in the book if we were to get the slightest sight of it...
"Google usually works better than demanding fact checks in comments, though"
But putting it in the article (come on, you *know* someone was going to ask and if the OP hadn't, I certainly would have) would have been even better.
As the old students' maxim has it...
... if you copy from three sources, that's *research*!
"a brilliantly elegant core search formula...
"...that yields the most useful result almost every single time"
Err, which search engine is this, then?
It certainly isn't Google when so many searches seem to have been "gamed" to the top...
Brings a whole new meaning to...
... Take your job and shove it!!
Sounds like Rincewind...
... who claimed that his mother ran away before he was born!
'unlikely the figures could be released
' "for commercial reasons"'
Or perhaps because, once again, it would only reveal how incompetent these people are at negotiating a proper contract instead of saving the tax payers from being screwed...
Poisoning the Well...
Once again it seems that the media (including El Reg) are trying to make the story about Assange, not about what Wikileaks is doing.
And how easy is it to spoof?
As soon as I read this, I thought "ok, what if someone plants a few cannisters of petrol/ gas/ diesel etc with pinholes to allow them to leak slowly?"
Every detection would have to be checked out and operations would be slowed to a crawl.
... someone's checked the validity of his wikipedia page...
That's as bad as McGuyver....
... nicking footage from The Italian Job!
Crowdsourcing = "Doing it on the cheap"
And when you pay peanuts...
"a lot of time and effort was spent for very little"
So, no change there...
Latest News: Security Theatre reduces Carbon Emissions...
... It has been announced today that worldwide carbon emissions from air travel have been significantly reduced because more and more people are refusing to be treated as potential terrorists simply for wanting to get on an aeroplane and are choosing not to travel by air...
I thought this...
... would be something like a Global Hypercolour T-shirt (ie ends up getting cheap colour changing dye all over the place!)
No, you are failing to understand the point. To answer your questions:
1) In order to ask this question you first have to know what the limit *IS*. The Scottish law effectively simply says that the limit is "too fast".
2) You say "the prosecutors don't make the law" but then you give an example which seems to suggest that the Police do! (They don't of course)
3) There are Home Office Guidelines on the amount of drugs above which someone can be classed as having "possession with intent to supply".
4) This is not just distasteful, it is stupid and irrelevant. The offence is you forcing yourself on someone else without their consent, that is the limit which is clearly defined in law, unlike the definition of so-called "Extreme Porn" which is *not* defined.
Oh, well, yes, now you say that it's obvious that our opinions should be:
"It doesn't affect me, so I'm alright Jack and screw anyone else!"
- ← Prev
- Next →
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- Apple's iPhone 6 first-day sales are MEANINGLESS, mutters analyst
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln