merely an MD5 hash...
... or is that what they *want* you to think...?
5194 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... or is that what they *want* you to think...?
... Feminists Against Censorship for more details
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.
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.
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!
... 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.
... of stable doors being slammed as the horse disappears over the horizon...?
... watch Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea for one example!
... 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.
... those obvious reasons being the lack of proof reading of your post...?
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you'd just posted:
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!111!!oneoneone!!111
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?
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!)
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...
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!
[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?
"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?
... 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?
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..."!
... but it's got a long way to go before it becomes Optimus Prime....!
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!
And that pretty much sums up the idea of patenting software.
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...
... 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...
So if a business wants to lose my custom, please, go ahead and use them...
... as Mythbusters demonstrated.
... 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?
... as the cyber-squatters try to grab xxx.xxx fuck.xxx sex.xxx and so on.
Meanwhile legitimate adult (but non-pornographic) businesses like mine have to decide whether we should go for the .xxx version of our domain *as well as* the other ones we already have resulting in extra costs and possible censorship of our domain and loss of customers or not getting it and seeing someone else grab it, possibly taking custom away from us...!
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
... one up!
(That's one upward rating...!)
... we have to be able to shut down the internet!
Well, imagine how bad it would be if *someone else* did it...
... of course the instructions do say "BACK UP YOUR SYSTEM FIRST!", don't they...???
... little Bobby Tables...
... so that tiny spring will *leap* from wherever it vanished to under the car/ workbench/ dog and land neatly in place...