5068 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
... thank you for that intelligent comment detailing the fact that your Human Rights and Civil Liberties in this country now mean diddly-squat and the Police have the right to shoot, beat you or Taser you at their discretion.
Bravo! Now excuse me whilst I trit-trot along here...
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
It's good to see El Reg post these guidelines, but may I make a few suggestions:
1) The author of an article should have no ability to moderate (or edit) comments. If allowed, this simply leads to a blatant conflict of interest. Also the decision to allow/ not allow comments on an article should be down to El Reg's Editorial or Moderation team, not the individual author.
2) If an article is based on the author's opinion of a published work etc, it should be clearly marked as such. Occasionally some articles have appeared in El Reg which are extraordinarily one-sided yet not marked as "Comment" or "Opinion".
3) It would be useful if, in the "My Posts" section, there was an indication of whether someone else had replied to your comment (eg a line saying "2 replies") to save having to check each one to see if someone has responded.
4) Since you can tick a box to post anonymously, why not have a box to tick that comes up with [NO TITLE], or if you reply to someone else's post without including a title of your own, have the forum system stick in Re: [previous title]
"appeared to be unavailable from the UK today."
Which is a good thing because if Jim Gamble has anything to say about it, you should be arrested for simply *looking* at that site because it *might* hold CP and that is proof enough of guilt for him...
Well now they've sacked Ross...
... they're saving a bunch of money, so if they ditch a few more "big names" they could actually start making some quality programmes again instead of rubbish like 101 Ways to Strictly Come through a Hole in the Wall...
So more customers for...
call1899.co.uk or call18866.co.uk or ratebuster.co.uk or...
"targets industrial and power plant control systems"?
"executes automatically if an infected USB stick is accessed in Windows Explorer."??
Why the HELL would anyone be putting USB sticks into machines that run these sort of system in the first place???
PS To those saying "It's only one pound a day"
I suggest you read this article:
In 1980 parking charges were £1 a day.
In 1990 that became £1 per hour
In 1995 that became £2 per hour
In 2000 that became £4 per hour
Now in 2010 it's £5 an hour!
What more, exactly are you getting for that £5 an hour?
What is WC Council getting? Well, they're getting a way to pay down their £22 *million* overspend see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8470804.stm
But it's "In the Public Interest" says Westminster Council...
... yet all they are doing is introducing a £1 charge for parking bays that were, previously, free. There is absolutely *NO* benefit to bikers, no extra security features, no extra parking spaces, nothing that justifies this charge other than it makes money.
Yet somehow this is "in the public interest".
Presumably that "public interest" is that the WC Council doesn't have to make savings elsewhere because they can tax bikers...
The point you're missing...
... is that, as with many other New Labour laws, the RIPA is vague and ill-defined and pretty much as soon as it was brought in, started experiencing major function creep as, for instance Local Councils etc suddenly realised that "hey, we can spy on people to check they live in the right place to send their kid to this school, the law says we can!".
The aim of the review is to ensure that Investigatory Powers are *properly* regulated and targetted to where they are needed, rather than to where they are wanted.
All it needs...
... is a red light strobing across the front...
May I be the first to welcome our Cylon Overlords!
This is not a virus...
... tell all your friends!!!!!
I own Facebook...
... and the Brooklyn Bridge, because someone sold it to me and wrote the bill of sale on the back of a post card of it!!
Polanski's "much more serious crime" was not at issue, what was the issue was that a deal was struck that would have involved him not being jailed after the girl's parents agreed that he should not be imprisoned.
What he then did was to leave the USA after it was suggested that the Judge was going to jail him anyway, which is an entirely different matter.
The girl involved has subsequently said that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to be jailed either.
It seems that, unlike the UK, at least the Swiss aren't willing to turn someone over to the USA without better grounds for extradition that "we want him, hand him over".
I agree with you that the idea of specifying gender (which is not a binary condition) on identity documents is dodgy given that it's by no means a binary condition in all cases.
But there is one point I have to question where you say "a person's apparent sex is something that even the dopiest witness can occasionally remember."
I could introduce you to people whose apparent sex is by no means obvious, either through genetics or personal choice of dress and personal appearance.
So when are the Israelis...
... Going to pass all their data over to the EU?
(I hope that it will include details of all their people's passports...!)
Will it ever run out of whackos?
Not whilst they can't even do some basic searches to discover that British Petroleum merged with America's Amoco (formerly Standard Oil) back in 1998.
Or that the biggest shareholder (and thus, technial owner) of BP is the American JP Morgan Chase with 28.34% of the shares.
Or that the that exploded was owned and operated by an American firm, Transocean and that only about 8 people on there were BP employees and BP only had a 65% share in the well.
Or that the failed 'blow out preventer' was made by another American firm - Cameron.
Nope, it's all the fault of the Brits...!
Are you *seriously* trying to justify your arguments by saying that "Well 12 American Jurists agreed with this, so it's ok"??? They probably thought they were being reasonable because the record companies original intent was to sue him for $4,500,000!
But still, in all your ranting and name calling and silly analogies and shouting "FAIL!" as if it was a valid argument in itself, you don't answer my question: HOW MUCH of that money is going to go to the ARTISTS?
Oh, and just to clarify, I have no problems with artists signing deals with corporations, provided those deals give reasonable recompense to the artists for their work, instead of much of it being creamed off by those who do nothing in the creative process, ok?
@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?
"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..."!
- ← Prev
- Next →
- YARR! Pirates walk the plank: DMCA magnets sink in Google results
- Pics Whisper tracks its users. So we tracked down its LA office. This is what happened next
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
- Human spacecraft dodge COMET CHUNKS pelting off Mars