When I were a lad...
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
FOUR YORKSHIREMEN SKETCH WARNING!
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
5948 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
FOUR YORKSHIREMEN SKETCH WARNING!
*WHOOOP* *WHOOOP* *WHOOOP*
... so protecting the profits (and bonuses) of the multi-million pound international music and film industry by allowing them to demand that sites that they say are infringing their copyrights be closed *immediately* is *so* much more important than protecting small businesses from unjustified take-downs because someone posted something which, allegedly, infringes copyright on Friday evening and it won't be until Monday morning that they find out that their site has been down over the weekend as they didn't instantly jump to delete the offending post when the industry said they should.
... Failbook decides what it thinks is important *for* you!
For certain values of "important"...
"...will also put a mobile phone into every car in Europe"
Great! So if you have a crash and you were using your mobile, it's ok because eCall put it in there, so it *must* be ok to use!
Oh, BTW, "if you want to travel anonymously after 2015 then best get yourself an (eCall-exempted) motorcycle", that's all well and good, but the EU wants to add a whole load of "safety" requirements to motorbikes like compulsory ABS, banning *any* modifications to engines, gearbox, sprockets etc (basically anything between the airbox and up to and including the rear wheel!), the possibility of roadside emission checks by Police etc, they could also end up emulating the current rules the French are trying to enforce where bikers are to be made to wear full sleeve hi-viz jackets because it's obviously *their* fault that drivers didn't see them!
MAG are organising a country-wide protest on Sunday the 25th so bikers can demonstrate exactly what they think of these proposals see http://www.mag-uk.org/en/campaignsdetail/a6883 for more details and if you're on the M27 Rownhams Services eastbound on Sunday, I'll see you there :-)
... Certainly, Sir, I'll sell you this fantastic anti-satellite insurance policy.
If you're killed by a fragment of satellite I'll pay you one million pounds on personal application...
"...has been aggressively pursuing new opportunities to keep businesses paying and paying for more and more domains which they don't need and don't want, but are going to have to register simply to stop someone else from squatting on them..."
There, fixed it for you!
... or if you do, don't get caught...!
... Come Home!
"Society" did nothing of the sort. A bunch of Labour MPs desperate for some publicity, seeing a band wagon they could jump on (and exploiting the grief of a mother whose daughter had died in what was actually probably a tragic accident), forced a piece of legislation (supported by policy based evidence making) onto the statute books without letting our elected representatives have sufficient time to debate the entire bill it was contained in.
It was left to the Lib Dems in the Lords to question it but they couldn't get enough support to block it because, as one Tory Peer admitted to me, "Tory Lords don't vote on Lib Dem amendments".
So we ended up with (yet another) nonsensical and utterly unenforceable piece of legislation on the statute books and if you are *really* a "web specialist" you would know perfectly well that attempting to enforce *any* restriction "across the internet" (even if only in the UK) is utterly impossible.
Right, so let's block *everything* that *might* possibly give access to "extreme" pictures (defined as "pictures that people like Clare (web specialist) don't like".
We can start with Google, Bing, Yahoo...
Well firstly this "cross industry body" is going to target exactly what that *industry* doesn't want out there.
And secondly, apart from kiddy porn, what other "more objectionable" content on the internet would you like to see blocked according to the personal opinions of the people on this or some other such body?
We already have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings acts, what's next to be banned because "We don't like this, so you're not allowed to see it"?
"...power is never over-concentrated in a few hands"
Yet that is *exactly* what he is suggesting with a "cross-industry body [...] charged with identifying infringing websites against which action could be taken".
Does he *really* think that they are going to operate in the best interests of the public? Or are they just going to operate in the best interests of their profits and bonuses???
I agree, given that extortion and blackmail are illegal, this sort of protection racket should be banned outright.
"...who constantly do damn all when people raise complaints about fake accounts, being unfairly blocked for 'spamming' when they haven't, and who block people from their own pages when the log in has been been hacked etc etc etc..."
There, fixed it for you!
... but who remembers Helliconia?
Damn, you beat me to it, I was going to post something similar ending with "She can't have fun, fun, fun 'cause dad's disabled the T-Bird today!"
And, of course, Face Book will not, at any time, arbitrarily decide to change the settings on your templates so suddenly what you thought was "Close Friends Group" only turns out to be going to "Work Group" or "Family Group" etc....
"...unwholesome scenes of violence and the like."
Erm, I can think of a few Playmobil reconstructions by El Reg which might fall foul of this!!
... oh, sorry, you said *an*gina...
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't"
I suggest you look up the word "subsequent"...
... no, the blame is on those who, when we had the chance to *change* a broken electoral system, decided to believe the FUD spread by the vested interests in politics and the media and *stay* with that broken system after a choice of "FPTP or AV" was foisted upon us instead of us being allowed to decide amongst *ALL* the possible options.
It's not that "we" accept them, but our "elected representatives" (who are supposed to tell Parliament what *we*, their constituents think) usually blindly follow their Party Whips' instructions "this is Party Policy, this is how you will vote".
A few have the courage to stand up and object, but their voices are generally drowned out and even if they manage to get an amendment tabled, it's usually voted down by the rest.
"[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering
... please don't let comments this excellent article be swamped by endless Conspiracy Theory arguments which have been debunked time and time again, yet never die.
The word then was "We will not let the terrorists change how we behave or let them destroy our freedoms"
Now it's "We must give up our freedoms, our liberties, our rights to 'protect' society from terrorists and if you don't agree, you must have something to hide like being on their side!"
Every time our leaders introduce another measure that restricts our rights and liberties "for our own good" Al Qaeda et al are sitting in their dens laughing their socks off as they watch us doing their job for them.
Time for Ben Franklin again: "Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
IIRC There was a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera which had a character called the "Chief Exploder" whose job it was to keep an eye on the Ruler of the Country and, if the Ruler got out of hand, the Chief Exploder would, well, explode the Ruler and then become Ruler in their stead.
Of course a new Chief Exploder would then be appointed...! :-)
Have you tried organising a country-wide petition? Even if you can organise one, it requires people to be in the right place to get others to sign. In the past I've seen a petition handed in to Number 10 and thought "I'd like to have signed that, but I didn't even *know* about it..."
(Oh and before now AIUI governments have tried and sometimes managed, to get a huge petition written off as a *single* comment!)
"We vote in a representative for us, who then gets to vote on our behalf... or not, as the case so often is."
Unfortunately, frequently they get *told* how to vote by the Party Whips, ie they're representing to us what their Party decides we want...
Don't even joke about that, otherwise you're liable to end up with a jail sentence...!
... there's the new documentary Apollo 18 which has just been released which blows all the old conspiracy theories away and substitutes entirely new ones!
Of course they had to pretend it was all just a movie to get it past the censors, but now we know the truth!!!!!
(Oh and tell the gentlemen in the white coats that mine's the one with the long canvas sleeves and the tinfoil hat in the pocket...)
Pah! My BBC Micro was quicker! Switch on, Boop-Beep! and there you were!
I agree, it would save the hassle having to go to "my posts" and then open the discussion and find your posts to see if anything has been added.
"The Tea Party can be lambasted for having 2 sets of standards (one for citizens and one for POW) but even I don't really see a problem with that as long as both standards are humane."
You really don't see a problem with that? Hmm, let me try a few expressions on you here:
Separate but Equal
Some are More Equal than others
American vs Un-American
There's plenty of precedents for double standards...
"Obama isn't reviled because of his color, it's his POLICIES"
Really? Then how come on forums I use which a fair proportion of USA-ians posting on them, even the right-wingers object to a significant number of their fellow countrymen referring to "The N****r in the White House"?
I think you need to re-read the (other) self-described coward's OP with your Irony Detector switched on...
It was my impression that the Tea Party et al were all in favour of "enhanced interrogation" etc, but only when it's being used on left-wingers/ foreigners/ anyone who isn't Christian because they're the ones that we need to worry about...
... hacking meant you had to make an appointment to be arrested...?
Oh, sorry, wrong sort of hacking, of course!
"...would naturally point out at this stage that humanity still ought to curtail carbon emissions"
Or just point out that we should use energy *more efficiently* which would make the most of a limited resource *and* cut emissions at the same time.
I'm glad to hear that you got something out of the YTS/ YOP/ Whatever it may be called, but the fact remains that most people on such schemes are just used as a source of cheap, government funded labour doing monkey work with no chance of a job at the end.
Ah, yes, part of the MSC which stood for "Massive Statistical Coverup", just like with "Back to Work" or "Restart" or any of the other government schemes whose main purpose was to keep people off the "out of work and claiming benefit" totals because they were on "training" instead...
Of course what really happened is that employers would take on a "trainee" for whatever the set period was, but at the end of that period, oops, sorry, no job available for you, however we'll take on another trainee who's paid for by the State.
At least with an Apprenticeship system there's a better chance of someone getting employment at the end of it.
... so I dial a prefix and then the full "national" number, no matter what.
It's not really that hard, especially when you've got the prefix and your most commonly called numbers on speed dial!
"a router we've ordered that's been delivered to the company but hasn't found its way to our department"
Check with the BOFH in Mission Control (just do it very *very* carefully...!)
... oh, sorry, *that* sort of gold!
Nothing to see, move along...
"Do not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain"
Ah, but at least his crime wasn't so heinous that, instead of making an appointment or knocking on his door they decided to pre-emptively punish him by smashing the door down and going in mob handed...
"if prices were left to the market, they would fall"
Ah, yes, that's why fossil fuel energy prices rise so rapidly whenever there's a spike in the market, but then fall back equally as quickly when it dips again...
Oh dear, again you put try to put *your* words into *my* mouth.
I'm not going to bother re-addressing points I've already made and you've ignored, I'll just point out that so many abusive regimes have started their careers with a "temporary" suspension of rights.
Please feel free to have the last word, but I'll leave the last words in my post to George Satayana:
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it".
Right, so you did just decide for yourself that was what I said, rather than reading what I wrote.
I see little point in addressing your ridiculous Straw Man arguments, I'll just point out again that just because *some* people might abuse a right or a service like Facebook, Twitter et al, it doesn't justify stopping *everyone* from using it, not least because the "low life youth" would just switch to another method of communication whist the legitimate users are denied access because of your Precautionary Principle idea that "well, we don't know that it will do any good, but let's try it, just in case".
The fact that you have then set a precedent that, if something happens you don't like, it then justifies subsequent abuses of people's rights because "well it might not have worked last time, but let's try it again and we'll go *further* this time..." appears to have escaped you.
Did you actually bother to *read* anything that I wrote, or did you just decide for yourself that that was what I said...???