Not a Jetpack, but who cares?
It's still pretty damn cool and I'd like one! :)
5460 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
It's still pretty damn cool and I'd like one! :)
"I know a few people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years or more and there's nothing wrong with them. Nothing at all."
And I know people who haven't worked a day in the last 5 years (or more) and who would *love* to work. They have been on endless "training courses" and "back to work" schemes and all the rest of the MSC (that's the Massive Statistical Cover-up because whilst they're on these schemes they're not classed as "out of work and claiming benefits), but, despite all that, when the job centre are sending thirty or forty people out for interviews for *every* job vacancy, the odds of them actually getting work are pretty bloody slim.
As for "one way would be to raise the minimum wage." who, exactly is going to *PAY* them that money? If you hadn't noticed, there's a recession on at the moment and most businesses are looking to cut costs, not pay more, so you'd actually get *fewer* people working. It's not exactly rocket science...
... that such nocturnal vision would also help those reindeer tasked with the important job of drawing Santa's sleigh...!
... that should really be 974.45 nano Wales.
Apart from that being a gift to a *different* President, if you'd done a little more research you would have found that Obama's grandfather was in Kenya at the time of the Mau Mau uprising when Britain rejected the demands of that country's people for greater representation and land reform and Churchill ordered in the military who used repressive measures and torture (sound familiar) to try to put it down. Obama's grandfather was one of the victims of these measures.
So is it really any wonder that he doesn't want a reminder of that in his office?
... I know what I'm doing for the next few days...
1) Cobble together a Beta price comparison site
2) Sell it to Google
... I don't agree with the content of this piece, but frankly it reads like a rant rather than informed opinion. Come on, El Reg, you can do better than this.
"A public interest test should be applied when one is planning to step away from the norm."
Oh really? And who decides what this "norm" Is? As I've posted before, I make BDSM equipment but it is *MY* choice to post that, not yours nor anyone else's.
What about someone being gay? If they choose to "out" themselves, that's up to them, but I don't accept that anyone else has the right to do that unless they're preaching from an anti-gay stance.
You say "the rule should be that anyone has the right to publish anything unless it can be shown that it is in the public interest to suppress" and whilst I can agree with that, it's only when that there is actually a public interest benefit in publication.
Revealing details of someone's private life simply to sell newspapers etc is *not* in the public interest because there is no benefit to the public.
You say you "can see no merit in the suppression of legitimate news stories due to the embarrassment they may cause whoever it is this week caught with their pants off... (or wearing the wrong pants)" but you miss the difference between "What the Public may be interested in" and "Public Interest (meaning "what is of benefit to the Public")
The media (bless their cotton socks) are, of course, deliberately trying to blur and confuse the distinction because the former is what sells more newspapers/ gets more viewers even though there is no *benefit* to the public other than some salacious tittle-tattle to liven up their breakfasts.
Revealing someone as a hypocrite (eg John Major preaching "family values" whilst he's shagging Edwina Currie on the side) is perfectly legitimate reporting, but stories about "We caught X in bed with Y" is just muck-raking gutter journalism.
Also does BBC Parliament Channel have to put in a time delay with a "CENSOR" button to bleep out any names that might be covered by an injunction...?
Hopefully it's a bit more interesting than that turgid, pretentious and over-long trailer...
Not added value, just added sex, violence and gore most likely.
In other words "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission" or "we'll go ahead and do what we want until someone eventually passes a law to stop us which we can't ignore or bypass..."
... of derisive laughter, Bruce!
"the complaint claims violation of the US Constitution. It names Baidu and, unusually, the Chinese government as defendants in the case."
So, typical Yank behaviour thinking that *their* laws apply to the whole world!
... I can actually agree with Matt Bryant on something!
AFAIK that's only if they're sold through eg a charity shop, not if it's a private sale.
"... ruled against this practice in 2008, but current guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) states that chief constables" can tell people to fuck off because the ACPO thinks it knows better than the ECHR and the British Government is probably going to do likewise...
"Building a superfast rural broadband network is largely low-skill" didn't you understand?
Job Centre Drone: So, what qualifications do you have?
Unemployed geek: Well, I can program in Java, C++, Ruby, Python...
Job Centre Drone: Excellent, we have a perfect job for you, digging trenches for Broadband Cables!
... it gives the People a forum where they can cry out in the belief that someone, somewhere in Government, will hear their pleas and actually give a shit instead of going ahead and doing whatever they want...
... your Irony Detector is switched on before posting...
... they're hoping that people would have forgotten the sort of cheap plastic junk that Dixons put out under the Saisho label...
Doesn't matter. Based on another current story in El Reg, we can expect a Declaration of War imminently!
... to being hit by buses!
Perhaps I should have that included on my medical records...?
... or "Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You" will now be replaced by S.M.M.L-G.A.A.S.D.S.Y or "Sorry Mate, My Laser-Guided Accident Avoidance System Didn't See You".
Of course what both still mean is that the idiot behind the wheel didn't bother to make proper observation when pulling out of the junction.
I think that the dad is going to start regretting this when she gets to her teenage years and the number of boys liking Like increases...
Ok, on a site called geek.com, users might be expected to understand what Sandboxing is, but for most people the response would be "WTF is Sandboxing? I go to the site in IE I click on stuff, pages come up, what's the problem?"
The Daily Mail forums are that way ---->
... need to check the settings on their irony detectors...
Only because they probably thought they couldn't get people to believe that it was actually kiddy porn...
"Nice domain you have here, Squire.
"Be a shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean..."
Don't Peugeot know that Al Qaeda will be using this to plan attacks!!!
"Software companies should be entitled to bigger damages for the use of copied software."
Well *there's* a surprise now, boys and girls...!
(Where's that Pope/ Bear icon El Reg?!)
... I think you mean "Gray Area" aka "Meatfucker" ;-)
... but I can't see any Pierson's Puppeteers around here right now...
... checking yourself or getting checked for cancer is a sensible idea, but sheesh, talk about Passion Killers!
(There again, given the size some of the underwear sold, the warning would have to be printed in a 6 point font otherwise it simply wouldn't fit...!)
Even better, put them in Geocaching sites!
Obviously it's a "dead drop" and the security services can spend ages watching them and then following the people who a) pick them up and b) leave stuff behind...
... "He's dead, Jim!"
So is that ancient Aramaic or Latin you're using, then...?
"I play the real rules"
No, you play a set of house rules that you've made up.
Paging James D Nicholl: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."
English constantly grows, adapts and changes. If you want a language that doesn't, try French which has laws to protect it (not that many people pay attention to them)
"To make it more marketable, Scrabble recently allowed proper nouns and I believe also stage names."
That was only a variant of Scrabble, not the official version of the game which uses the SOWPODS Scrabble Tournament word list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOWPODS
... by the scammers...
... instead of being ripped of as a country by the last Government pi$$ing away huge amounts of money on a massive vanity project :-(
Have you not heard of the Cornish National Liberation Army aka the Cornish Republican Army?!
This is a radical terrorist organisation with at least *one* member!!!
(Icon because it's the one with swords ;-) )
As soon as the credits start to roll I hit the Mute button (or Fast Forward if I've recorded it) and pay no attention until they've ended because of the blatant spoilers that the BBC often stick in.
Now I just have to figure out how to avoid them in articles in the Radio Times...
"...Often they are fairly speculative"
And at other times they're ridiculously speculative or are blatantly obvious or there is clear prior art, all of which *should* stop any such patent from being granted if it wasn't for the fact that the US Patent System is utterly broken and thus open to exploitation by Patent Trolls...!
Even when I quote *YOUR* own words, you keep trying to evade the issue.
Feel free to really get the last word this time because I really can't be bothered to waste any more time on you.
Oh dear, Matt, you are *SO* desperate not to admit you are wrong! I wasn't going to post again, but you've made another claim which I cannot leave to stand without challenge.
Yes I have "admitted" (good word!) that the prosecutors say they "won't seek the death penalty", but again you try to shift the goalposts with an irrelevancy because again I remind you that *YOU* said (I quote once more) "Manning has not been charged with any section of military law that includes a death sentence" and I have shown that UCMJ 104 *does* include a death sentence.
Now, based on what you have said, I have looked and searched and I cannot find anything which confirms your claim that "You have to specifically charged as violating Section 2 of Article 104 to face the death penalty", so please can you post a link that verifies this, because I cannot see how you manage to twist that meaning out of:
* * * * *
104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.
* * * * *
Section 2 of that is not some sort of stand-alone charge, nor does only Section 1 or Section 2 independently specify the potential death penalty, the two sections linked by "or" are clearly intended to be read together and *either* can result in the death penalty, ie "Manning *HAS* been charged with any section of military law that includes a death sentence".
So can you answer this without moving the goalposts again?
(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.
Now unless the gardener a) knew that the neighbours were watching (with a telephoto lens from 150m away!) and was deliberately waving his willy at them, I don't really think that there's a case to answer.