5137 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
"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!"
Yes, films with certificates are exempt, but a clip taken from a film with a certificate may not be if it is adjudged that "it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."
Which is one of the stupidest things ever to appear on the Statute Books...!!
Given the nonsense that's happened with the English law (the Tony the Tiger case for example) what do you think...?!
Nobody here is dense but you.
As with the English version of the law there are a vague and ill-defined set of stipulations that:
"An image is extreme if it depicts, in an explicit and realistic way any of the following—
"(a)an act which takes or threatens a person’s life,
"(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in a person’s severe injury,
"(c)rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity,"
The first problem here is that just because it is "realistic" does not mean it is *real*! Consequently a staged photograph which was actually taken will every possible safety precaution observed could *still* fall foul of this law because it is "realistic".
The second problem is what "threatens a person's life"? This is entirely subjective and relies on someone's *opinion* of what it looks like is happening in a picture, instead of what *actually* happened.
Look at some Goth imagery and you'll often see pictures of young ladies in erotic poses in floaty white dresses who are being threatened with knives of have apparently had their throats or wrists cut because they're covered in (fake) blood. Now again if that looks "realistic" it could be covered by this law even though nobody was harmed in the making of that picture.
The same goes for "severe injury" which, in the Scottish case is even broader than the English law which at least only covered injury to the "Breasts, Genitals or Anus", meaning that a picture of someone who has (consensually) been caned leaving bruises and raw skin on their buttocks could be adjudged to be of someone who has sustained "severe injury".
Finally the "rape" clause has the same problem in that if it *looks* like rape, it's illegal, no matter that, again, its a staged act between consenting adults.
Consequently what you have is a law where what is or is not illegal is *not* in any way clearly defined, so it's not a case of "how far over 30mph you are" it's a case of "Yes, M'lud the defendant was, in my personal and entirely subjective opinion, driving too fast, so he's guilty."
PS You're right that it's not rocket science. Rocket science deals in precise statements and accurate measurements, not "how fast do we need the rocket to go?" "I don't know, let's just see what happens when we try to launch it..."
"without clear guidelines as to what constitutes "extreme porn", potential perps may be able to get off by simply saying "how am I to know I was breaking the law"
You are exceptionally naiive if you think that is going to happen! As has already been shown in England (eg with the "Tony the Tiger" case) prosecutors will push to the limits of the law (and beyond) in order to get a conviction, their argument will simply be "ignorance of the law is no defence" (the fact that they were ignorant of what the law says because it stipulates that someone should consider an animal to be *real* or that it was a *joke* wasn't important to them!)
PS As for "someone being prosecuted for having a copy of Mayfair, it could happen simply because before the last Government changed the law, it was legal to print porn showing girls who were aged 16, but now the law says that the definition of a child is age 18, so some back issues have been rendered illegal.
"We do not publicly disclose our prosecution policy"
Paging Mr Kafka, Mr Kafka to Scotland...
"I cannot imagine why anyone would want to watch something like that"
I cannot imagine why anyone would want to watch a lot of stuff that passes for popular entertainment these days, but I don't call for it to be banned (other than facetiously) simply because I don't like it.
More importantly, however, once again we see the Nanny State stepping in and telling us that we cannot be trusted to watch something because we're so weak-minded and suggestible that, if we do see it, we'll immediately go out and do Bad Things (tm)
@AC "How very clinical"
"I wonder if you'll find consolence in your words when someone close to you dies."
You mean like when my father died of a brain tumour when I was 16?
I could see it happening. I knew it was going to happen. Yes, I was sad, but I was old enough that nobody tried to "sugar coat" it by effectively denying what was happening or saying "he's going to live with Jesus".
I'm now 45, older than my father when he died, I know I'm mortal. I know my mother and sister are mortal, I know at some time we're all going to die. That doesn't mean I won't be saddened by their deaths, but neither does it mean that I'll try to ignore the fact.
"I suggest you need to do some more research."
Why? Because I pointed out that your "explanation" for WW2 was simplistic and overlooked major causative factors?
As for your suggestion that people weren't lobbing nukes because "everyone had seen what they were capable of", I suggest *you* look firstly at the US use of Napalm in Korea (far more than was used in Vietnam) which in large quantities had effects very similar to a nuclear strike and secondly consider that MacArthur wanted to use them to blockade the border between North Korea and China to prevent them getting supplies and reinforcements by using radioactive cobalt in a "scorched earth" policy, risking potential like-for-like retaliation against US targets.
Had there not been that risk of retaliation, that war and the world could be a very different place.
@James Hughes 1
Or you could try the old analogue method of licking a finger and moving towards where it feels coldest.
(Hang on, wouldn't that be "digital"?!)
@Test card numbers which pass the validation process
4111 1111 1111 1111 works for Visa cards
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes