So what this probably means...
... is that Google can serve you "targetted ads" even quicker...
5295 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... is that Google can serve you "targetted ads" even quicker...
Coppers' Protection Service...
Erm, perhaps he could have phrased that better?!
"Won't Someone Think of Teh Children!!!!111!!!oneoneeleventyone...."
Because if they had, the Police would have just gone "Phew! That was a close one, but not *learned* anything from the experience!"
Each story like this just illustrates the complete ignorance of basic security provisions by those who are supposed to *protect* our security and until they get the message, there will be yet more such stories.
... No win, no fee!
Tell me, exactly how many crosswords do you do? (NB I'm talking cryptic crosswords, not the quick one in The Sun...)
Using a dictionary or thesaurus is not "looking up the answer in a book", it is a way of finding the precise definition or shade of meaning that the compiler has used which is often deliberately obscure or oblique.
For instance if a compiler uses the word "neat" in a clue eg "Neat offspring (4)" it may be in the sense of "clean, tidy, orderly", but it could also be the archaic term for "a domestic bovine animal" [Collins]
Now if you've never heard the second definition before, you're going to be stuck until you pick up a good dictionary and go "Aha! That was what it means, so the offspring of a neat is a calf!"
Implying that this is somehow "cheating" simply shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Exactly *how* is using a dictionary (or a thesaurus) "cheating" when doing a crossword?
Using a word finder would be, using a crossword solver would be, but not using a dictionary or thesaurus to check a definition or find the right "shade" of meaning to crack a compiler's clue.
Yes, you can get more onto a CD/ DVD/ whatever, yes they are easier to transport etc, but a 20 year old copy of the printed OED will still be usable whilst a 20 year old copy in an electronic format (remember the 1980's Domesday Book which was produced on 12" Laser disks and read by a BBC Master computer?) will have been surpassed by later technologies.
Convenience is all very well, but permanence should not be ignored.
"I have yet to speak to a single fellow website owner in the adult world who is against this."
Really? And exactly how many have you spoken to? Because I, as just one website owner who supplies adult products am entirely against this as a waste of time and energy which will just increase my costs, add extra bureaucratic hassle which I don't need and do *NOTHING* to benefit my business.
I think you will find it is only a vocal minority who are in favour of this.
As for: "For others that do not have such a good domain name, this is good news."
Is it really? Do you think that someone who has anyadultdomain.co.uk will get preferential treatment if .xxx is brought in and will be the first person allow to register anyadultdomain.xxx?
Of course not, what will happen is a frantic "land grab" where the cybersquatters and domain resellers will bombard the system with applications for all the "good" domain names (and probably every other adult related domain name they can find and then offer to sell them to legitimate businesses for many thousands of pounds or dollars more than the $60 registration fee they paid.
Once again I have to point out that whilst my site might deal with BDSM gear, it is *less* "pornographic" that what you can legally buy off the top shelves of newsagents.
So should I be compelled to ditch affordable-leather.co.uk and re-register as affordable-leather.xxx because my product images offend your delicate sensibilities?
Or should I do (as I have already mentioned) put appropriate warnings, register with blocking services etc and expect *YOU* as (presumably) responsible parents to do *YOUR* job of protecting *YOUR* children from material that *YOU* don't like instead of you wanting *ME* to do the job for you?
You mean my putting "Adults Only" and "18+" and including related tags on my site and registering with Net Nanny, Cybersitter et al isn't "self-identifying" enough?
... who wants to run a sweep on how long it will take for the first security flaw to be found...?
... that's not important right now.
... The Plane! The Plane!
... (even though IANAL) because my contract is with the *retailer* not with the company who makes the game (this is why, if something breaks then, under the Sale of Goods Act, I can go back to the person who sold it to me for redress and not be fobbed off with "it's not our problem, talk to the manufacturer").
Now if the retailer were to say to me "We cannot sell this item to you unless you agree to this EULA here and now" they might have a case, but not otherwise.
11 The “reasonableness” test
(1)In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness for the purposes of this Part of this Act, section 3 of the M1 Misrepresentation Act 1967 and section 3 of the M2 Misrepresentation Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 is that the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made.
As mentioned by AC, the contract is made when a price is agreed and money is exchanged. Unless the EULA forms part of that it is not "reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
... this was some version of Howard Wolowitz's "Hey baby, do you want to drive a car on Mars?"
"...or a charter for busybodies and control freaks to regulate the minutiae of our everyday lives?"
What do you think?? Why should something be an offence in one place but not in another? Surely if it's causing problems in City A it will also cause a problem in City B or C or D.
The whole idea of the creation of English Common Law was that there would be *ONE* set of rules for the whole country, ones that were (supposedly) fair and equitable and subject to proper scrutiny (yes, ok, I know that New Labour did their best to avoid that, but that was the original idea).
By all means get rid of old laws, but allowing local councils to introduce new ones is just because some prod-nose gets a bee in their bonnet and manages to persuade others to go along with them doesn't mean that the situation will get any better.
You are free to believe what you want, provided you don't start trying to tell everyone that *they* should believe it too.
... that you can actually remember where you parked the thing!
.... Assuming you can't stop in time or go around them.
If you can't stop in time or go around them then you are driving *TOO FAST* for the circumstances (NB this is not the same as speeding because you could be below the limit but on a slippery road or in situations where visibility is reduced)
Any computer controlled system *MUST* be able to adequately calculate the appropriate speed for the conditions and adjust it accordingly, otherwise it will be just as dangerous as drivers who think that 80mph is a safe speed on a foggy motorway...
Your whole rant^H^H^H^H self-righteous position seems to be based on the same mentality of the previous Government's "vetting scheme" where everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Tell me, do you require that anyone who comes and babysits for *your* children allows you full access to their computer so you can check through and ensure that they don't have any "questionable" images on it? No? So you admit that *YOU* are jeopardising *YOUR* children by failing to take adequate precautions!!!
"...whether they would be prepared to accept road pricing as long as there was no overall increase in the amount paid by motorists as a whole"
And when they were asked how they felt knowing that every journey they took would be tracked and probably linked ANPR cameras would be used to automatically assign speeding tickets to anyone who went from A to B faster than they were supposed to they said...?
Oh, of course they didn't say anything, because they were *NEVER* asked those questions!!
... is don't embarrass the authorities...
So WTF were they doing between 2001 when Gary McKinnon showed how laughable US Military "Computer Security" was and 2008 when this attack happened...???
Are you sure that wasn't an A? Actually using (some of) the right punctuation and spellings would have been a guaranteed A*
... firstly going to the Coalition's Your Freedom site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/ and supporting the various proposals to throw this (and other laws such as the criminalisation of consensual BDSM) into the bin and, secondly, going to http://www.writetothem.com and making your MP aware of your objections to these stupid, ill-thought out and useless laws.
... before Viktor Nabakov's novel Lolita is on the Burn List...?
... just don't bother visiting the Land of the Fee!
The use of square brackets in this context generally means that the editor has included the name to replace eg "him" or "they" etc in a piece excerpted from a longer article.
eg "I see this in papers and magazines as well [Skelband asked] Why are some pieces of quoted text in brackets?"
... so I can stare at my exact speed in small print on the GPS.
Why not just make sure your speedo (which should be legible and if it isn't, you shouldn't be driving) is at or below the limit because it probably reads 10% high already?
Oh, of course, I know why not, you're one of those people who thinks that it's a Speed Target instead of a Speed LIMIT.
The point you miss is that it is excessive speed *FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES*!
Which is more dangerous? Doing 80mph on an empty motorway or doing 70mph on the same motorway when it's crowded with traffic and covered in fog? The answer is (or should be) obvious, but which one gets you a fine and points on your licence and which one doesn't?
Putting in ANPR cameras will force people to stay under the limit, but it won't stop them driving like idiots.
The point is not that "the weight is secret", but what happens when (as is almost inevitable) you start getting charged for rubbish disposal by weight and someone decides to dump that old monitor or stack of bricks in your bin rather that theirs.
And if you think that's nonsense, I'd point out that for the past couple of months, someone has been sticking a couple of bin-bags of their rubbish outside *my* property. I have no idea why, I have no idea who, but if I was paying by weight you can be damn sure I'd be objecting!
"The crime isss life...
"... the sentence isss Death!"
- Judge Death.
Kill everyone and you'll have a perfect crime-free country...
Oh dear, it's the tired old "I have to stare at my speedo" argument.
FYI a speed limit is exactly that, a *LIMIT*, not a *TARGET*.
By all means Make Progress on open roads, but if you're in a situation where you need to watch for "traffic and pedestrians around you" simply driving to the "limit" shows a lack of awareness (and ability) to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
... I thought it said "Election Spin"...
... a consultant on this project?
But since when did the facts bother Jim Gamble and his little Empire?
In other words, "we're going to be watching all of you wherever you go and whenever you travel, just in case you're a terrorist. Meanwhile, we'll be looking at linking cameras at major junctions so we can check how fast you have traveled from A to B and if we think it's too fast, we can pay for the cameras by giving you a speeding ticket!"
... and everyone knows that The State doesn't like competition...
"accused of" != "guilty of". Even in Russia these days, I've heard.
... not to visit the Land of the Fee...
Definitely Comment of the Week :-)
No, because that means deleting bits before publication, however it can be repealed.
We need *EVERYONE* to visit the Government's "Your Freedom" site and support the following:
NB there are several variations on these, I've picked the ones which have the most votes, but if you search on Pornography or BDSM you can find others to support too (and several worth writing comments in opposition to)
Once you've done that, visit http://www.writetothem.com and find the contact details of your MP and make your points to them as well otherwise we risk the Your Freedom site becoming just another "fob them off" exercise so beloved of the last administration.
... to control the crowds offering to help with the search...
... that he has the power to delete whole sections of Street View...
... All we know is that he's called...
In other news... Popes, Catholic, Bears, Woods, you know the rest...
"What a pathetic example."
WHOOOSH! (The sound of my point going way over your head)
Try reading the bit about "False Dilemma" again...
You might then try looking up "Straw Man" as well.
The CPS will sit on it for a while and then decide that there is "Insufficient evidence" to bring a case...