shifting focus away from the WikiLeaks cause…
Is that the sound of High Fives being exchanged in the USA...?
5295 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Is that the sound of High Fives being exchanged in the USA...?
"Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation."
And that says it all.
Governments represent their people, so the people have a right to know what the Government is doing in their names.
Thank you for the clarification, I agree entirely.
(Alas it looks like those who downvoted me haven't bothered to read the read of the thread...)
Yes, I *KNOW* the quote I have used it many times myself (as a quick search of my name and the phrase will demonstrate) although actually whilst it's generally now attributed to Voltaire, it's possible that he never said it, but it's a paraphrase of his beliefs see: http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
I was not accusing you of threatening anyone, the point I was making was that in your post you put a question mark at the end seemingly querying why the opponents of the EDL should not be allowed to say what they want, however I think you would agree that sending threatening hate-mail goes beyond the right of freedom of speech.
Perhaps the people who down-voted me would like to change their votes now, or don't they agree with *MY* right to express an opinion because *they* misunderstood it?
"I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
You have the right to express a view, you do not have the right to make threats against another person because you don't like what they say...
Great, so the person in front of the person in front of you gets refused for some reason, but then you stick your card on the reader and as it authorises it allows *them* to walk through the barrier and *you* get blocked until, hopefully, someone behind the person behind you puts their card on the reader and that lets you through...
... have a backup.
Second rule of computing:
See Rule One!
But to whose benefit?
If I was running a business supplying salt and grit and could find out that a Council was buying it at £38 a tonne and I could supply it at £20 a tonne, it would be to my advantage, the Council's advantage and, most importantly, the Tax Payers' advantage for that information to be available.
In fact the only people whose interests are protected by "commercial confidentiality" are the people who are supplying it at a higher cost and thus making greater profits from the public purse!
... Ed Milliband, c/o Labour Party Headquarters and mention that Tony and Gordon should chip in too...
You mean I can't get a refund for my Betamax VCR or my DAB radio or my DAT player or my Mini Disc player or...
... which can eternal lie...!
Well if it isn't, we both have the same problem!
Although with a bit of concentration (I find it best to watch the extended leg) you can convince your brain to swap the direction she's going.
And you try looking up the dictionary definition of vengeance.
... nobody has *EVER* subsequently been acquitted on appeal or post-humously found to have been the innocent victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Tell me, how much justice can *you* afford?
... "wrong type of interviewee"!
"...such as Startling Detective or True Detective Mysteries."
Err, aren't those the ones whose covers would feature full colour drawings of busty young ladies with loose blouses or ripped skirts being bound up or attacked or fleeing from assailants along with lurid stories of vice and drugs and general depravity?
Nope, nothing for the prudes to get upset about there...!
... in the Trade Section, there was a new "toy" from Japan which was a synthetic female hand attached to a mechanism which would allow it to slide up and down in synchronisation with the motions of a young lady on a video which would play on your computer.
I can't help thinking that with that and the game in this article plus a webcam there's a whole new world of (ahem) "interactive communications devices" just waiting to be developed...!!!
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.
31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth.
32 Let us get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let us get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”
35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.
37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.
38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Erm, excuse me, Amazon...!!!
So much of what appears on TV now barely needs vision *at all*, let alone 3D!
I often work whilst "watching" (well, actually listening to) something on Discovery or National Geographic channel because so little information is supplied by the pictures that I only need to glance at the screen once a minute to see if anything important is there (usually it isn't) then go back to what I need to look at.
Even the narration is often so ridiculously repetitive that the whole programme could have been shown in half the broadcast time.
3D? Flat Screen Plasma? Hi def? I'll stick to my old CRT TV!
I agree that some people with mental health problems will never be suitable for rehabilitation, but that's an argument for better mental health facilities (as is the fact that many people who are currently in prison would be more suited to secure mental hospitals if they hadn't all been cut)
As to how we decide who is or isn't suitable for rehabilitation, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to comment, but I do know that past results have shown that "give them a hard time" doesn't work, but that systems like Restorative Justice http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/ have shown greater positive results
Try looking at the history of penal systems and you might find that the "treat them like the scum they are and don't give them *anything* more that the basics" technique has been tried in the past and, unsurprisingly, found to fail to break the cycle of offending, release, re-offending and re-incarceration.
Or just go back to reading the Daily Mail.
Let's just look at some of the names who have been offering to contribute to his bail: Ken Loach, Tariq Ali, John Pilger, Jemima Khan.
This isn't "Yes, M'Lud, the defendant's Uncle Fred and his brother in law Honest Charlie are willing to write a cheque post-dated for next Tuesday"...
WTF? That's really a great idea, let's just go down to the bank and draw out almost a quarter of a million pounds in cash, jump in a taxi and tootle down to the court with it in a suitcase!
Not Bitch of the Year?
(Oh come on, someone had to say it!)
Hush! You're not allowed to say that, otherwise people might start asking the US Government about all the other leaks of politically sensitive material to the media and the word "hypocrites" start being bandied about...!
I'M ON A COVERT MISSION!!!!
No more pilots hopped up on Amphetamines as the US military has been wont to do to keep their pilots alert at the cost of impairing their judgement and causing friendly fire incidents because you can swap the "pilot" during a long mission.
So you launch a spotter aircraft or drone or you use satellites to locate your targets...
So cue the SF cliche of the "Big Weapon" that you dare not use because to do so will leave you dead in the water until your power recharges...!
At a guess I'd say you wind in the wires, perform a standard gravitational sling-shot manoeuvre and then, when you're past Jupiter, extend the wires again and (possibly) get a double push. Sorted.
Are you planning on bringing back castrati too?!
... it's not complete until you can tune it to "Open E" and play "Smoke on the Water"!
Surely you mean Stilsuit!
First of all you make the mistake of thinking that the "online porn industry" is the same as the online *adult* industry (it's not) and secondly trying to compare the tobacco companies who *knew* that their product was harmful to people to either is utter nonsense since despite many years of trying, *nobody* has provided any scientifically verifiable proof that porn or adult content actually causes any harm at all.
The vast majority of the adult industry has no desire to "inflict" its product on anyone who doesn't want to see it, unlike the "moral minority" who want to inflict *their* views on everyone by saying that "we should be the ones who decide what is or isn't safe or acceptable for you to view".
If you want to make sure that you don't see porn, invest in the free blocking software that is available. If you want to make sure your children don't see it, take some RESPONSIBILITY for the upbringing of your offspring.
Once again I have to point out the flaw in this argument.
I run a business making bondage gear. I don't have "porn" on my site, but I do have "adult content" (the difference, if you want to make one, being that it's not designed to encourage you to wank over it, but to buy the products)
I already have had to register and pay for a bunch of domains based on my Affordable Leather Products business name (the only one I don't have, .com, is currently sitting parked and doing nothing because someone wants to sell it for over three thousand dollars!) if there's an .xxx domain as well, I'm going to have to register *another* one and probably, because it's .xxx that's going to be at a premium price because, "well, it's porn, so we can charge more for it, can't we?" and that's presuming, of course, someone doesn't try to cybersquat on it before I can buy it!
I'm not being "untruthful" by having a .co.uk domain instead of a .xxx domain, but it's certainly going to cost me more even though I already have a "Warning - Adult Content" front page and the site is registered with Cyber Sitter, Net Nanny and so on.
Thieves now have the capabilities to steal your credit card information without laying a hand on your wallet.
Bandwidth throttling? DPI and Net non-neutrality?
If you built a motorway network and businesses started huge lorries along it, breaking up the surface and causing congestion for other users, would you consider it unreasonable to ask those businesses to contribute to the cost of upkeep or would you think it better that those businesses' traffic be diverted to slower roads?
... Vote Fascist for a third Glorious Decade of Total Law Enforcement!
Which sounds approximately like "Nahleevimkevin'eeaintworfit!"
Sure, *IF* they would do their jobs properly, however for someone to be charged they have the *RIGHT* under the European Convention on Human Rights to be notified of the details of what they are being charged with in a language that they understand.
Julian Assange does not understand Swedish, so the Authorities have screwed up at the first hurdle.
And in other news...
(You know the rest)
I watched a fascinating interview on BBC News 24 yesterday after comments from Malcolm Rifkind and Liam Fox condemning the latest "criminal" leaks about "an extensive list of facilities around the world that, according to the latest leaked cables, the US describes as vital to its national security"
They had the former US Assistant Head of Homeland Security on whose attitude was a lot more relaxed and saying things like "I don't think terrorists are going to attack eg the Port of Rotterdam simply because the US considers it a 'choke point' in transatlantic trade" and commenting that many of these facilities are more of *economic* interest because to swap to alternatives would cost more money.
Methinks someone doth protest too much!
... "Today’s decision by the Court of Appeal draws a line under the efforts of a small number of individuals who, over the past ten years, have perpetuated conspiracy theories about Operation Ore."
He failed to mention that even the Appeal Court Judges said that their decision was based *SOLELY* on this case. "This appeal has addressed one ultimate issue and one only, namely whether the appellant’s conviction is or is not safe. Different prosecutions, and different convictions, involved different issues. We are concerned with the issues relating to the appellant’s conviction only."
Still, when did Jim Gamble ever worry about ensuring the facts were correct...?
The point, of course, being that those "interesting debates" you refer to require *scientific* evidence to support conclusions otherwise they're nothing more than talking shops.
If our Government isn't going to *listen* to that scientific advice, the whole exercise is pointless.
This is the same evidence that Police experts had "serious doubts" about?
'Peter Johnston, a former computer crime officer for Merseyside Police, told ITV News that officers rounded up people whose details had been linked to internet child pornography despite doubts over their guilt.
'He said: “There then came the calls of ‘let’s get out, let’s get them locked up, let’s get these people off the streets, you can’t have paedophiles wandering round the streets’. My view, and it’s purely my own view, is that yes there was a witch hunt.” '
Yet, according to the Press Association:
'Dismissing the challenge, the judge said: "There is no real possibility that a reasonable jury, faced with the evidence we have considered, would not conclude that he was the person responsible for the transactions in issue. We have no doubt whatsoever as to the safety of his conviction."'
I would like to find out what exactly ensured they had "no doubt" in this case, was it because APACS and the banks said "Oh, no, Your Honour, our systems are entirely safe, there's no way that anyone could commit a credit card fraud like this, it must have been the card holder who did it" and the Judges replied "Ok, that's good enough for us"?
"...doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content"
Err, which part of Wiki *LEAKS* didn't you understand when you took their money for hosting...??
I once lived in a house that had been converted into three flats. Out of interest, having had problems with a credit card application, I did some checking with the Post Office, credit reference agencies etc and found no less than *TEN* addresses related to the property: Garden Flat, Basement Flat, Hall Floor Flat, Ground Floor Flat, Top Flat, Flat 1, Flat 2, Flat 3, Number 59 and the name of the Guest House that was converted to flats!
"... suggest voters punished England for its media's "hostile" coverage of allegations of corruption at Fifa"
Except why didn't Putin attend? Maybe he knew the votes were already bought and paid for...!
(Not that I give a crap anyway)