4931 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
So what you really mean is "next time we won't go for the laid back, force legislation through Parliament technique, we'll just get the Jackboots out and kick in a few front doors."
("But don't worry, if you've got nothing to hide...)
Ok,I object to this on Civil Liberties grounds...
... but it would be incredibly useful for people like me who find it extremely hard to remember names and faces, next time I see someone, a quick zap with the camera and it can pop up their name and other details to save me having to say "Sorry, I can't remember who you are"!
Smile (for the camera!)
"lack of international support"
This is due to the long running playground spat between Hasbro and Mattel. Hasbro have the rights for the game in the USA and Canada, Mattel have the rights for the rest of the world and they cannot agree to play nicely together...
Ok, it's good that ASP are challenging the nonsensical puritanical mores of their country, but I find it disappointing that they "express its opposition to violence in all its forms, " with the seeming implication that consensual (but extreme) BDSM videos are the same as non-consensual, violent sexual acts because they say "A category of Non Violent Erotica would include all sexually explicit material between consenting adults that is free from depictions of violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaultive language."
Perhaps they're trying a "small steps" technique to slowly push back the barriers without the sort of resistance that a "legalise it all" campaign could cause, but they seem to be risking codifying another set of barriers which would be harder to get rid of because "Well, the ASP lobbied for these laws!"
It's also disappointing that they cite "a 2005 Eros summary of all recent research studies into the effects of violent media on children" when they are talking about *adult* material designed for people who are obviously *not* children and should know the difference between right and wrong and consent and non-consent.
BTW I do have to question why it was necessary to include a quote (presumably for "balance") from Vivienne Pattson the director of soi-disant Mediawatch-UK.
This organisation is just the old Mary Whitehouse brigade under a new name trotting out the tired old rhetoric of "porn is wrong because it objectifies women" as if the women who take part in it (what about the men?) are, presumably, mentally or emotionally deficient and cannot understand for themselves what they are doing without Ms Pattson and friends telling them "no, we don't like this, so you shouldn't do it".
Mediawatch are not amenable to reason and, unlike Backlash, they have no interest in engaging in sensible discussion with anyone who disagrees with their position.
"potentially some caring person is out of pocket"
Unfortunately that's what happens if you receive stolen goods. It doesn't matter whether you bought them in good faith, you have no legitimate title to them.
Presumption of innocence...?
Not for the poor bastard who had his name spread all over the papers so the lynch mob started sharpening their scythes and lighting flaming torches.
This is just another example of why the accused should be allowed anonymity in cases like this. You can bet that even now he's been acquitted, there are still idiots who will be saying "well, there's no smoke without fire" (even if the fire was set by someone else...) and refusing to have anything to do with him.
@The Indomitable Gall
But it doesn't *matter* whether the guy is a paedophile or not, it's simply possessing (oh, sorry, isn't that "making", since he "made" the images by downloading them, didn't he?) which is enough to get you branded as a witch, err, sorry, paedophile...
... this is only measly titanium, not Adamantium!
I'll support those cuts...
... and ones to the Armed Forces and Civil Service etc *PROVIDED* you start at the *TOP*.
We are definitely in the position of "Too many Chiefs" whose main job is to warm seats and shuffle lots of paperwork (usually in the form of "reports") to make it look as if they are indispensible which the poor bloody infantry (or equivalent) are trying to do more and more with less and less and new recruits are harder and harder to get because the resources are just not there to support them and train them to do the jobs that are desperately required.
(Flames because it's the best way of getting rid of them!)
'I want to do good'???
Going from Microsoft (who got so big for their boots that they thought they could tell the world what to do) to Google (who are getting so big for their boots that they think they can tell the world what to think)...?
Has anyone else's Irony Detector just gone into meltdown?
So once again...
... the Yanks decide that *they* own the internet and they can enforce their arbitrary standards (and the wishes of media companies who make big contributions to certain lawmakers' campaigns!) on the rest of the world.
The Land of the "free to do only the things that we like..."
Have the Police made enquiries at El Reg's offices?
It could be John Lettice...
"After listening to consumer feedback, we realised that...
"... we screwed up massively so we'd better eat some humble pie before everyone switches to other products!"
The problem is that if you are being sued you have to waste time and effort and money hiring lawyers, compiling a defence etc.
Even if (or when) you win, you're not guaranteed to get your costs back, so you still lose out :-(
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"...???
I wasted ten minutes of my life...
... checking to ensure that my system hadn't been compromised by a malware product masquerading as a "legitimate" warning before finding out that even though I hadn't been infected it wasn't a legitimate warning at all.
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.
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.
... the world is now safe for Mom's Apple Pie.
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.
@What would you call it?
If I download a Linux distro, am I "making" Linux? I don't think so, I think I'm downloading it.
What would you call it?
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"?
... 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!
... 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!
... but what about ACPO...???
"Yes," say the Chinese, "we understand you don't like this.
"Now you need to understand that we don't give a fuck!"
So what this probably means...
... is that Google can serve you "targetted ads" even quicker...
Coppers' Protection Service...
Then you turn on the control laser and...
Erm, perhaps he could have phrased that better?!
'adverts for child prostitution were "rampant" on the site'
"Won't Someone Think of Teh Children!!!!111!!!oneoneeleventyone...."
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?
.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?
... who wants to run a sweep on how long it will take for the first security flaw to be found...?
... that's not important right now.
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.
And I was thinking...
... this was some version of Howard Wolowitz's "Hey baby, do you want to drive a car on Mars?"
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Video of US journalist 'beheading' pulled from social media
- Microsoft refuses to confirm 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- The Register to boldly go where no Vulture has gone before: The WEEKEND