4950 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
@Robert Hill: Failure of Understanding
You claim that I am supporting or condoning theft and that I am not "sticking up for the little guy" which only goes to show how little you comprehend.
Let's take the analogy posted by Anonymous Coward @ Sunday 11th July 2010 19:18 GMT where he says "obtaining an item whilst depriving the provider of that item of their desired/expected recompense".
Now, being a small businessman, I am ALL FOR allowing the provider of that item with recompense, but imagine what would be the state of affairs if I made an item for a cost to me of eg £5 and then had to sell it to a Tescos/ other big store/ distributor/ whatever for £6 only to see them retail it for £20. I make £1, they make £14, so do you consider that to be reasonable?
The point is that that is how the record industry used to work. An artist gets a pittance of the final sale value of their work and *THAT* is the obsolete revenue model that the Recording Industries want to protect and preserve and they will use every case of file sharing to justify this position by claiming ridiculous "losses" they incur and even when someone gets the amount of damages they have to pay "reduced" from $675,000 to $67,000, the Recording Industry is still onto a winner since there's no way most people could pay that and even if they could, exactly *how much* of that amount would go back to the original artist...?
... profound economic and artistic harm to the recording industry' executives pay packets and bonuses that occurs when people realise that they no longer have to put up with an obsolete revenue model...
There, fixed it for you.
There's an app for that!
Pity they weren't drinking Rum highballs...
... then it could have been a Mojitoceratops!
"the information could cause injury to the United States"
Or, at least, show them up for the bunch of trigger-happy, gung-ho, "shoot first and ask questions later", idiots that they are...
EDUCATE, DON'T LEGISLATE!
If someone *really* wants to "think of the children" they should provide them with the information they need, rather than trying to keep them in the dark in the hope that "well, if they don't hear about it, they won't do it".
The latter statement has been the justification of every bit of censorship from the Extreme Porn legislation and the Dangerous Drawings law back to when Socrates was sentenced to death for "Corrupting the youth of Athens".
Information will always get out one way or another, trying to deny children information just means they will get it from other (unreliable) sources and nobody benefits except the "Moral Crusaders" who feel smug that everyone is benefitting from their repressive attitudes.
See the group...
... Feminists Against Censorship for more details
merely an MD5 hash...
... or is that what they *want* you to think...?
Welcome to the wonderful world of amanfrommars1. Nobody knows who (or what) he is or whether he's just a failed attempt at AI.
Most regular El Reg readers know that whilst, occasionally, he comes out with something that is actually comprehensible, generally it's best to just skip over his posts and save yourself the time...
... is all very well provided you're not dealing in "adult" products, in which case, as happened to someone I know, they suddenly found themselves being informed that Worldpay would forthwith no longer provide services to their (entirely legal) business.
For an SME, having to change payment providers at no notice is a serious problem.
I agree too...
When the Extreme Porn legislation was first suggested in this country one point that those of us who objected to was the fact that, as with your cousin, it would make important safety information more difficult (if not potentially illegal) to access and thus lead to more such avoidable tragedies.
PS One side note: the CB2000 has been discontinued and replaced with the CB6000-s ;-)
... fix the problem with the Children's Hearings (I agree that legal representation should be available), but that's not an argument against what is a sensible and proportionate use of DNA.
Bravo for Scotland!
I have fundamental objections to the UK DNA database and its related nonsense because it treats *everyone* as criminals, whether innocent or guilty.
Scotland, however, has done some joined up thinking and is only holding the DNA of children if they are *convicted* of an offence and if they want to keep it, they have to demonstrate a need for it to be held for more than three years.
That is a sensible use of DNA and model that the English Government should consider copying.
... and Angela in Bones had a similar setup too.
... so is your wife!
Many of the world's problems...
... could be solved or mitigated by the availability of truly cheap power, so whilst it's a shame that other research projects may have to be put on hold, I think that putting the money into fusion is worthwhile.
Was that the sound...
... of stable doors being slammed as the horse disappears over the horizon...?
... watch Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea for one example!
What a waste of money...
... on both sides.
This whole fiasco could be ended if politicians had the guts to put their hands up and say "ok, we admit it, we cannot ever win this phony war on drugs, so we'll put the barons and the dealers out of business by decriminalising the product and getting the pharmaceutical companies to turn it out in clean, uncontaminated retail quantities (which they could do easily since they already produce it for the hospital market, eg what do you think diamorphine pain killer is?) and save a lot of suffering all around.
AC for obvious reasons
... those obvious reasons being the lack of proof reading of your post...?
@Why the fuss?
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you'd just posted:
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!oneoneone!!111
the kind of things you might sort out in the very early stages of a project
Remember this was a New Labour project we're talking about...!
...not everyone is as clever as you.
... following "Tea-boy Photo Gate" that there are certain people at the BBC who read El Reg.
Is that like Twatdangle?
Re: The Scrabble facebook game.
Of course if you use AdBlock Plus you just get the countdown which you ignore for 44 seconds or less and then play the game :-)
(You could always come and visit the Gamehouse Scrabble Forums whilst you're waiting!)
And about time too!
Why should an application need access to all my personal data simply to allow me to play a poxy game?
... factual, informative and rational and no personal attacks.
Perhaps someday all El Reg articles will be written this way...
[ad hominem snipped - Andrew]
You what? Andrew Orlowski is now not only moderating posts in response to his articles (can you say "conflict of interest"?!) he is also *EDITING OUT* bits that he doesn't like.
It seems that it is ok for HIM to call people names, but when the boot is on the other foot he can't take it.
Talk about an abuse of power!
Ah, the movable goalposts are out of storage...
[ad hominem snipped - Andrew]
So let me try again, Andrew: Please will you answer the following regarding the creation of synthetic crude:
How much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude?
Will it be self-sustaining?
Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?
And please don't try to fob off the questions with "don't you worry your pretty little head, we'll come up with some clever technology sometime to deal with it" nonsense this time.
As I said in another post "Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?"
Again I ask "Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?"
How about some answers, Andrew?
Re: "We can synthesize crude already"...
"You need to think in terms of available energy and how well we can harness it, and turn it into useful things."
Please, Andrew, tell us the difference between *available* energy and *usable* energy. (Hint: An atomic bomb produces LOTS of energy, but exactly how much of that is usable?)
It's all very well posting clever pictures of "this is how much energy we use and this is how much is available", but it doesn't say how much energy we will have to *expend* in order to get that, does it?
"Now we may or may not be doomed - but we're certainly doomed if we follow you. We wouldn't be here today if our ancestors had. Simple, really."
Oh dear, Andrew, another personal attack, one of many you use when you have no way of countering an argument that you don't like.
You keep making comments about "bedwetting" (do you really think they add anything to the validity of your points?) yet you keep reaching for your security blanket of "we'll be able to sort this all out eventually" and pulling it over your head in the hope that it will make the nasty bogeyman of increasing usage versus limited production go away and stop scaring you.
What my argument actually is (as opposed to your Straw Man caricature of it) is that we, as a species, are using more and more energy and at some point we *WILL* reach a point at which demand will exceed supply.
Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?
Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?
"My point is that the transition to synthetics will not require us to live in yurts, or whittle, as the Peakers want"
... is a ridiculous Straw Man argument.
You might like to look it up on http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html and, at the same time, look at some of the (many) other fallacies ("bedwetting" = Ad Hominem) that you've managed to use in place of actual reasoned debate.
Do you really think that that sort of thing adds any credibility to your arguments?
"We can synthesize crude already"...
... but what that site *doesn't* say is how much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude. Will it be self-sustaining? Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?
Perhaps Andrew Orlowski could take time out from making ridiculous ad hominem attacks and address the errors in his logic?
"everyone has a responsibility to protect themselves and their children"
I had to read that twice to make sure it didn't say "the government and everyone else have a responsibility to protect all children everywhere..."!
It's a boat, it's a plane...
... but it's got a long way to go before it becomes Optimus Prime....!
Misunderstanding the point
How many extra Social Workers would that £224 million pounds have paid for along with the £44 million running costs every year?
*THAT* is what this money should have been spent on and it would have meant that the overworked and underpaid and demoralised people who are trying to do their job with totally inadequate resources and backup might be able to protect the children who so desperately need someone to look after their needs, rather than a Big Brother database which can record in exquisite detail how the system failed them...
... and what happens if you leave your phone at home or it gets nicked...
... I've got the same combination on my luggage!
I think you need to re-read that with your Irony Detector switched on...
... Dinner with the lads tonight. Not sure if I should invite Judas...
... commentards shouldn't be allowed to post on El Reg's forums if they don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about either!
"much money has been wasted and much innovation obstructed"
And that pretty much sums up the idea of patenting software.
Ah, it's another of those irregular definitions of "Freedom of Expression"...
Barbara Ellen says "When did porn (watching strangers shagging) become a basic human right?" perhaps it is really that that she thinks that because *she* doesn't like it, nobody should be allowed to see it, in other words "Freedom of Expression" really means "Freedom to look at things that Barbara Ellen likes, but not otherwise"
... had it been the UK, he'd have been extradited for Threatening US National Security and be facing 50 years in Maximum Security...
Whilst most people are watching...
... a bunch of over-paid prima donnas getting kicked out of the World Cup...
... the roads should be nice and clear, so I'll be having an enjoyable bimble along the twisty bits :-)
Mine's the bike jacket...
I'm 45 and I can hear the noise.
So if a business wants to lose my custom, please, go ahead and use them...
The Brown Note is a myth...
... as Mythbusters demonstrated.
I have to wonder...
... whether someone has an axe to grind here and what they're really saying is "kiddie fiddlers shouldn't be able to hide!"
This could become the first stage in sneaking through a version of "Sarah's Law" where one piece of information on its own isn't sufficient to identify someone, but combined with other pieces of information which also, on their own, aren't sufficient, *could* be used to identify a sex offender and let the lynch mobs get to work...
Follow this through: I already have affordable-leather.co.uk if I then register affordable-leather.xxx what's to stop someone (probably in the USA) saying "Hey, this is an .xxx domain yet they're trying to sneak one past us by having *other* versions of the *same* domain! We should make the software block *all* versions of that domain!"
Sure, it's not sensible, but that never stopped the Moral Minority, did it?
I just had to give this article...
... one up!
(That's one upward rating...!)
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Product round-up Six of the best gaming keyboard and mouse combos
- China building SUPERSONIC SUBMARINE that travels in a BUBBLE
- Boffins attempt to prove the UNIVERSE IS JUST A HOLOGRAM
- Review Raspberry Pi B+: PHWOAR, get a load of those pins
- 6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)