5134 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
@Consumer Credit Act to the rescue?
Unfortunately, as with services like PayPal etc, the Card Companies will argue that they held up their end of the deal when they delivered your money to the payment system and anything that happens after that is not their problem :-(
The "consultation is shorter than normal and is not being run in a way that encourages public engagement."
What? Governments running "consultations" that are rigged to ensure that they get the answer they want? Never!
... let's forget about presumption of innocence, let's forget about the fact that hosts may not *know* that this stuff is on their servers, let's not bother with saying "will you take this stuff down?" let's just put on the jackboots and kick in their doors/ take away their domain names and then leave them with the bill for sorting the mess out.
Let's take down anything that you and the Nanny State don't like, whilst we Think Of The Children!
"satisfy yourselves that those seeking to place advertisements are genuine concerns"
And how will they get this "satisfaction"...?!
Seriously, though, the sort of nonsensical language coming out of the Met is as bad as the last Government's idea of getting members of the WI to write to newspapers etc as "concerned citizens" worried about whether some of the adverts in the back of their publications might be exploiting trafficked women in the hope that it would deter them from accepting the ads in the first place.
For Richard Martin to say "criminal liability can arise in certain circumstances where evidence clearly shows that the advertising in question supports or promotes offences associated to trafficking, exploitation or proceeds of crime" is a barely veiled threat implying that the publishers will, somehow, be liable if the Police find out an escort agency etc is offering women who are forced into the work against their will, but this is as ridiculous as prosecuting the paper if someone starts flogging stolen goods through the Small Ads because obviously the publishers should have checked to see if the goods were kosher before they accepted the ad...
"Kids statistically will turn out better...
"if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart."
And I fail to see how this version of the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!!!" argument has *anything* to do with the subject under discussion.
This has nothing to do with children, it is to do with the right of *adults* to make up their *own* minds what they do with their bodies and their lives.
Your comment about "blind liberals" suggests that you're just a "reactionary conservative" who will automatically say "no, no, no!" to anything that you don't like on the grounds that "I don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to do it" and this is backed up where you claim that "gambling, hookers, drugs" are "common sense bad things" and then claim that "they are proven by studies to cause more problems that solutions" which is utter nonsense.
The only "studies" that "prove" this are ones that have been set up by people like the Poppy Project who have a vested interest (like you) in banning something they don't like and they will use any dubious methodology and skewed results to back up their questionable claims.
"Since when is legalising hookers a good thing"? Since, as with any form of prohibition, people have begun to realise that banning something *doesn't* make it go away, in fact it just drives it and the people involved *into* the hands of criminals and takes away the protections which they should be entitled to under the law.
That is real "common sense", you just cannot (or will not) understand it.
Police Squad - In Color!
This show was brilliant, from the death of the famous actor "special guest" at the start to the "freeze frame" gag at the end and not forgetting the Red Rock cider ads that riffed off it years later.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a Daily Mail reader, eh? Yeah, sure.
I think you rather miss the point, though, you say "While we may not like everything our governments do, at least in this part of the World we have the opportunity to say so, publicly." but this is not enough, because they are doing it *IN OUR NAMES* and we should know what they are doing "for" us and be able to hold them to account instead of having it brushed under the carpet with a "Secret" tag on it.
And for you to suggest that Assange should "avoid dark alleyways" just reinforces this: You seem to think that it is OK for our "democratic" Governments to harm those who call them to account and show what they are up to. But I suppose that's ok, because it's for our own good, isn't it??
The future is here...
... if you want peace through superior firepower...
The AM-15 holds up to a 275 round magazine!
... because of the *other* idiots who think that, by regulating the internet, they'll be able to protect the first lot of idiots who are gullible enough to fall for this scam!
... Avenue Q for more details!
Dialling area codes
I use 1899.com (because it's a damn sight cheaper without needing to pay for an over-priced bundle package!) so I dial an area code for all local numbers anyway.
It's not hard.
Nominet said it will consider creating an appeals process
Before they create an appeals process, how about they create a process where they actually *LOOK* at the sites that the Police want to censor and *CHECK* to see if anything illegal is going on there instead of saying "Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir, we'll take it down right away on your say-so and then deal with the poor sod on the other end whose business might end up being wrecked"
I started using compatibles...
... because of my Epson printer's habit of, even when I select "black only", still using the colour inks (which I rarely use) and I was finding that I was having to replace an entire set of Cyan, Magenta and Yellow cartridges without *ever* printing anything in colour!
I also use a chip resetter because I can get an extra 20-30 pages of printing from a cartridge that the printer says is "empty".
I've very rarely had any problems with the compatibles, if I do, a quick swap to the cleaning cartridge sorts it out and I count the savings...
This just shows a lack of imagination...
After all there's a whole spectrum of colours, so how about alert levels including Puce, Taupe, Salmon Pink, Tangerine, Tea Rose, Fire Engine Red which would allow precise shadings(!) of meaning of each level!
(Mine's the one of many colors ;-) )
Miss Charlotte T.Harlotte likes...
... Acacia Avenue Genito-Urinary Medical Centre...
You've gotta laugh!
On one side we've got MPs demanding that all Net users must provide ID to prove they're over 18 before they're allowed to access porn and now, on the other side we've got crooks who are already *actively exploiting* this sort of nonsense!
I think you mean "Laughable"!
It's just the Mary Whitehouse types trying to find any excuse they can to stop people from looking at stuff they don't like saying "We don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to see it".
"BT are responsible for implementing an opt-in for 'verified over 18s' to telephone sex/chat lines."
This was tried back in the days of 0898 numbers whereby, in order to be able to call these numbers, you had to opt-in by contacting BT and asking them to enable this service on your phone line.
Of course what this meant is that revenue for companies providing these completely legal services suddenly plummeted because few people were actually willing to admit to wanting to access these numbers, but simply resulted in providers of these services moving overseas or shifting to a direct credit card payment model.
You can guarantee that similar things will happen if this new opt-in is introduced, providers will always find a way of by-passing this sort of nonsense.
Is this going to be...
... The Great Smoke Wall of Australia?
After all, there's no smoke without fire...
Anyone who sends me their "annual Christmas message to friends and acquaintances" automatically gets excommunicated!
You've got a good point, eg the recent Venus and eroFame shows in Berlin were extremely well attended and there was none of the nonsense from this country of Westminster Council demanding that the show pay £20,000 for a "sex establishment licence" for three days, nor was there a doubling of the stall fees for anyone displaying phallic shaped vibrators.
Obviously those depraved Europeans are beyond redemption anyway, whereas we Brits can still be protected from the "tide of perversion" threatening to swamp our green and pleasant land...!
"Do you not think the problem is that the show no longer really has a target audience?"
I think that's certainly a part of it, but it's the fault of the organisers for failing to realise this about five years ago.
Erotica 2010 - A bigger waste of space than ever...
Speaking as someone who has attended these shows since they started and exhibited leather BDSM gear at four of them, I think the expression needed is "Dead Show Walking".
Standing on the (virtually empty) gallery level and looking down it was clear to see the huge amounts of empty space between the stalls which, ten years ago, would have been filled with exhibitors, because so many of the small niche suppliers have been completely priced out of attending.
There was virtually *nothing* at the show which made you thing "Wow! That's new and different", instead it was pretty much the same old same-old and you found yourself asking what board game designers and the RSPB were doing there (at least they didn't have the "tooth whitening treatment" stalls of a couple of years ago!)
The Erotica show is a shambling mockery of what it was, caused mostly by the greed of the organisers who are more interested in making as much money out of it as they can rather than making it a showcase for the best of the UK Adult Industry.
... printed in thirty seven different fonts because, well, they're there to be used, aren't they!
Not only that, but...
... from the line just before the one you quoted:
"One leading manufacturer said today that its scanning machines were programmed to generate occasional false positives in order to keep staff alert."
WTF? Scanners *designed* to create False Positives? And what happens to the poor fecker whose luggage is in the scanner when the machine goes "PING"?
Maybe he finds himself hustled off to a private room to find someone with a pair of rubber gloves and gets a free listing on a "To Be Watched" list...
You really can't let this one go, can you?
*Why* FFS do you or anyone else think that harassing this bloke in pointless and vindictive ways is going to make the world a better place? Do you really think that the authorities going on "fishing expeditions" like this in the *hope* that they can find something to convict him of is a reasonable use of their powers?
You seem to be in favour of a Police State where anyone who doesn't behave in the "approved manner" can be stopped, questioned, searched and so on "just to teach them a lesson", I, on the other hand, will leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
Please feel free to have the last word.
You are completely missing the point and your comparisons to hardware stores etc is really not helping your case.
Imagine you were that hardware store owner and the authorities, instead of asking you to stop selling the lock-picking kits, started having the Police pull you over every few days to check that your car was "road worthy" or you kept getting pulled in for questioning because "someone answering your description had been seen exposing himself to little girls" or whatever? Would *you* consider that to be reasonable?
Again I point out if someone has committed a *CRIMINAL OFFENCE* then by all means arrest them and charge them and test the evidence in a Court of Law, but to simply harass someone because they're simply doing something you don't like leads us ever further down the path of a Police State.
The point I am making is that just because he pointed out flaws in a browser and released tools that could exploit them does *NOT* justify hassling him for wanting to travel on an aeroplane!
Do the Authorities think that, somehow, he's going to hack into the aircraft's computers and take it over and fly it by remote control?!
If they think he has committed a criminal offence, fine, arrest him and charge him then test the evidence in a Court of Law. But for the State to harass someone like this for *NO* good reason is a complete abuse of power.
PS The rest of your arguments read like "OMG won't someone think of the children/ terrorists/ bogeymen who might do bad things with this stuff, so we shouldn't let *anyone* know about these things!!!"
"make it easier for said attacks to be undertaken"
"That is aiding and abetting a criminal activity"
And I've discovered a way to make cars go faster so they can get away from the Police more easily.
Or perhaps I've released a way to encrypt Hard Drive data so the Authorities can't read it.
Or maybe I've posted a thread on how to use a VPN to stop the Security Services from intercepting and reading my communications...
All of these will, of course, make it easier for criminals to evade the law, so anyone who does the same should be harassed whenever they want to travel by air...
Good for him!
This case has been a ridiculous travesty of justice as a result of a humourless official and authorities who don't like people mocking their Security Theatre, so decided to make this poor sod a scapegoat.
Given that this message was so "menacing" (even though it was originally deemed "non-credible" and the Police said "there is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see"), how come all the people who have re-tweeted it under the IAmSparatacus not also been arrested and charged? After all, that's clearly evidence of a mass threat to airport security...!
You mean like the nonsense that comes out of the assorted churches of this world...?
You should have listened...
... to the girl in the corner who, boy, tried to warn you, that it would turn into a Ballroom Blitz (Ballroom Blitz)!
I'm not American and I know that the English Caution runs "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
It does not matter whether he has been convicted or not, he is still entitled to maintain his silence if he believes that to break that silence would incriminate him. This is a right which has been confirmed by the European Court on Human Rights.
For the Judge to issue an ultimatum "give up your right to silence or we'll jail you" is unconscionable.
So much for...
... the right to silence...
... you're criticising TBL for not having a crystal ball which would allow him to forecast exactly how the web would be used 20 years from its inception?
Why not criticise Henry Ford for the mass produced motor car, allowing criminals a method of getting away from the Police or Fox-Talbot for creating a method of photography which would allow child pornography or Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone which would let people make dirty phone calls whilst you're at it???
@being struck off
I know what it means, but it takes something *really* substantial for those who are running the disciplinary proceedings (who are they? Why, I do believe they're *other* lawyers!) to actually use that as a penalty instead of saying "naughty boy, don't do it again".
... post them on El Reg and you'll soon find out how many problems there are with the contracts!
Got to put in my favourites here which should be on the list...
... many a 10p spent on:
R-Type (Level 6 was always an absolute ba$tard to beat!)
Spy Hunter (Dum dum dum da dum Da dum DAH dum, Deeee dee...)
Tetris (I once held all the records in our Students' Union!)
Afterburner - For the moving cockpit
But the all time great had to be Xevious, not least because I once managed to play for one and a half *hours* on one 10p piece! :-)
Oh and regarding Dragon's Lair...
... the only thing you needed to be able to do in this game was remember a sequence of moves and recognise whether it was the "left side" or "right side" version because to add "variety" the game would display a mirror image of the current scenario.
Oh, and there was a lovely money maker if you could do this because if you completed Player 2 before Player 1, P1 would end up with effectively infinite lives, so I'd offer inexperienced players a deal "give me 50p and I'll finish P2 for you..." :-)
Some Galactic De-fender you are, Space Ca-det!
@Radio was not overtaken by TV, as radio is better for listening
Given the distinct lack of content and excess of padding on many documentaries these days, I treat a lot of them *as* radio, listening to them whilst I'm working on other stuff since fancy (but pointless) screen-time filling graphics and tedious (and useless) "re-enactments" of historical events are completely unnecessary to actually understand and appreciate the actual facts.
3D? Dull, Dull, Dull!
"have publicly speculated..."
"...about planting an antimatter bomb in a government funding office"
Wow! It's a good job they didn't tweet about it!!
"many times being on the phone has kept me awake"
Did you not consider, instead simply *PULLING OVER* and getting some *SLEEP* instead of driving in a state where you were not only distracted but tired as well making yourself *doubly* dangerous??
And, please, trying to use that Franklin quote to claim that using a cellphone on the move is an "essential liberty" would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
The real problem is that most people on the road have *no* idea how to drive properly.
They might know that the pedal on the right makes it go faster and there's another that makes it slow down, they might know that there's mirrors which let them look out for other road users and they may even know that there's flashing lights on each corner which tell other road users that they're going to turn or change lanes, but that's pretty much about it.
Unfortunately once someone has passed a test which says "You can drive" that is it, there is no compulsory requirement for them to subsequently demonstrate that they still can do more than just operate a vehicle.
Of course that's usually enough, until something unexpected happens and some poor sod is lying bleeding on the road, at which point the vehicle operator is thinking "OMG I didn't know that could happen, why didn't someone tell me?" which is, of course, too late.
Until Governments start requiring compulsory re-tests and encouraging people to do more than the most basic training, things are not going to improve.
Oh and insurance companies could help, I'm doing my IAM motorbike training, when I pass my insurers will give me a whole £15 off my insurance! (Pity that's less than the cost of a year's IAM membership...)
"the apparently intelligent arrangement of the laws of physics and early cosmology, leading to how the universe and nature came into being as disclosed by scientific enquiry, does lead to further metaphysical questions of the kind you ask which can neither be answered scientifically nor proven mathematically."
ITYM "can not *YET* be answered..." Of course they also cannot be answered by simply pushing the answer away and saying that "$deity did it" with the stipulation (implicit or explicit depending on your faith) that such questions should not even be *asked*.
As for the rest of your post, you keep claiming that atheism is "illogical" and "irrational" simply because it doesn't fit in with what *you* wish to accept, chucking in lots of unproven (and unprovable) "If's" as if(!) that makes your arguments valid, so I see no point in wasting more time trying to convince you otherwise.
You quote Stephen Hawking (there's no 's' on the end of his name) as many religious people have done without understanding what he was talking about and instead jump on this statement and claim it as some sort of "proof" that the universe must have been "designed" and therefore that their "god" exists.
Your claim that "Atheists, it would seem have to assume the opposite, that the present causes the past rather than that the other way around" shows the fallacy of the above claim, it is those who profess to religion who swallow the myth that goes "we are here, therefore a god must have created the universe for us to be here in", whereas the atheist says "isn't it fortunate that the right conditions happened to come about for us to be here and observe these conditions".
And, please, don't try to convince me that because you didn't use the word "creation" you did *NOT* imply it in your words which I quoted in my previous post "The laws of nature are too finely tuned to allow life to exist for these to have believably (to me) arisen from blind chance".
If the laws did not "arise from blind chance", what other word would you use to describe this process??
"The laws of nature are too finely tuned to allow life to exist for these to have believably (to me) arisen from blind chance"
There is a story about a sentient puddle which thinks that "wow, this hole I'm in fits me perfectly. If it was smaller I'd overflow, if it had cracks in I'd drain away, obviously it must have been created for me, it couldn't have just happened by accident!"
Unfortunately that puddle (and you) make the error of getting things backwards, we can *observe* the "finely balanced" laws of nature simply because we have evolved in this universe where we *can* exist, but that doesn't mean that this universe was created for our benefit.
Meanwhile your comments about the "creation" of natural laws and comments about Shakespeare are simply Straw Men which show *your* lack of understanding of the subject rather than the invalidity of the arguments.
So what is a child?
Given the widespread disparity about definitions of when someone ceases to be a child (age of consent? Age of voting? Age of marriage?) let alone the nonsense we have in the UK about whether someone simply *looks* like a child or that child porn is anything that shows someone under 18 (unless it's a picture owned by someone who is in "an enduring relationship" with a 16 to 18 year old) trying to harmonise this across the EU is going to be a tricky job!
Then, of course, there's the small matter of the nonsense of being able to block *ANYTHING* on the internet...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- HALF A BILLION TERRORISTS: WhatsApp encrypts ALL its worldwide jabber
- HUMAN DNA 'will be FOUND ON MOON' – rocking boffin Brian Cox
- Bang! You're dead. Who gets your email, iTunes and Facebook?
- YOU are the threat: True confessions of real-life sysadmins
- Blackpool hotel 'fines' couple £100 for crap TripAdvisor review