4935 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
It is normal?
Well if it isn't, we both have the same problem!
Although with a bit of concentration (I find it best to watch the extended leg) you can convince your brain to swap the direction she's going.
"I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
You have the right to express a view, you do not have the right to make threats against another person because you don't like what they say...
And you try looking up the dictionary definition of vengeance.
... nobody has *EVER* subsequently been acquitted on appeal or post-humously found to have been the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Tell me, how much justice can *you* afford?
I think you mean...
... "wrong type of interviewee"!
"...such as Startling Detective or True Detective Mysteries."
Err, aren't those the ones whose covers would feature full colour drawings of busty young ladies with loose blouses or ripped skirts being bound up or attacked or fleeing from assailants along with lurid stories of vice and drugs and general depravity?
Nope, nothing for the prudes to get upset about there...!
At the Erotica show a couple of years ago...
... in the Trade Section, there was a new "toy" from Japan which was a synthetic female hand attached to a mechanism which would allow it to slide up and down in synchronisation with the motions of a young lady on a video which would play on your computer.
I can't help thinking that with that and the game in this article plus a webcam there's a whole new world of (ahem) "interactive communications devices" just waiting to be developed...!!!
To quote Isaac Asimov:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
I will now read from the book of Genesis Chapter 19 Verses 30-38
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.
32 Let us get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let us get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.
38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Erm, excuse me, Amazon...!!!
3D? Most documentaries are 1D!
So much of what appears on TV now barely needs vision *at all*, let alone 3D!
I often work whilst "watching" (well, actually listening to) something on Discovery or National Geographic channel because so little information is supplied by the pictures that I only need to glance at the screen once a minute to see if anything important is there (usually it isn't) then go back to what I need to look at.
Even the narration is often so ridiculously repetitive that the whole programme could have been shown in half the broadcast time.
3D? Flat Screen Plasma? Hi def? I'll stick to my old CRT TV!
I agree that some people with mental health problems will never be suitable for rehabilitation, but that's an argument for better mental health facilities (as is the fact that many people who are currently in prison would be more suited to secure mental hospitals if they hadn't all been cut)
As to how we decide who is or isn't suitable for rehabilitation, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to comment, but I do know that past results have shown that "give them a hard time" doesn't work, but that systems like Restorative Justice http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/ have shown greater positive results
Try looking at the history of penal systems and you might find that the "treat them like the scum they are and don't give them *anything* more that the basics" technique has been tried in the past and, unsurprisingly, found to fail to break the cycle of offending, release, re-offending and re-incarceration.
Or just go back to reading the Daily Mail.
Let's just look at some of the names who have been offering to contribute to his bail: Ken Loach, Tariq Ali, John Pilger, Jemima Khan.
This isn't "Yes, M'Lud, the defendant's Uncle Fred and his brother in law Honest Charlie are willing to write a cheque post-dated for next Tuesday"...
You can have bail, but we want £240,000 *IN CASH*!
WTF? That's really a great idea, let's just go down to the bank and draw out almost a quarter of a million pounds in cash, jump in a taxi and tootle down to the court with it in a suitcase!
Man of the Year?
Not Bitch of the Year?
(Oh come on, someone had to say it!)
Re: "shouldn't that be illegally _leaked_ material?"
Hush! You're not allowed to say that, otherwise people might start asking the US Government about all the other leaks of politically sensitive material to the media and the word "hypocrites" start being bandied about...!
I'M ON A COVERT MISSION!!!!
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.
- ← Prev
- Next →