4661 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... should have stamped "Kilroy was here" into the dust!
Damn you...!! ;-)
... seems to be a cosy little club which has no interest in being accountable to anyone else yet, somehow, has arrogated powers which enables it to influence Government policy and determine (sorry, "issue guidlines") on how the law should be interpreted and exercised.
It's good to see that the Lords are expressing concerns and more kudos accrues to Baroness Miller (who valiantly lead the opposition to the Dangerous Pictures Act), but the question remains whether our Government actually *wants* to have the ACPO subject to oversight...
@What a peculiar society we are turning into
I suppose we ought to feel lucky in the UK that we could only get jailed for three years for looking at pictures of consenting adults engaged in legal sexual activities.
(Gosh, I feel so lucky...)
The answer has to be to filter them as quickly as possible.
Good idea, I'll ignore anything by David Tebbutt in future because there's a strong streak of hypocrisy (do what I say, not what I do) running through this article!
That's an interesting Compendium of characters, I think I ought to relax and look at the Aquarium or have a Totorum before I end up needing Laudanum.
As of 11:49 02/09/09
At least they've fixed the "and" typo! (Maybe someone there reads El Reg?!)
"This site is currently unavailable, we are working on a fix and should have the site available again soon. Thanks. "
PS AC above, nice time machine you have... ;-)
"Follow me on twitter..."?
Or is that "Stalk me on twitter?"
... does not scan copyrighted works in Europe.
Which makes damn all difference when it's as easy to download something from the USA as it is from Europe.
If a book has been published in both the USA and Europe and Google has scanned it, it *will* be available world-wide, simple as that.
Adult Porn != Child Porn...
Ho hum, yet another idiot conflating consensual adult pornography with that produced featuring children (who cannot, by law, consent).
Of course, like those who wrote the "Consultation" on our "Extreme Pornography" ban, he's just using "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" as an excuse to push his narrow minded agenda.
Meanwhile: Paging King Canute...
"Not exactly the best design..."
So how about, duh... not selling it to people who would have problems using it?
The Last Library?
Is that like The Final Encyclopaedia by Gordon R. Dickson?
... you develop a graduated response that has got 95 steps. So you've now asked somebody 95 times very nicely and very politely can you please stop doing that and 95 times they've refused to," he said. "What do you do?"
Err, how about getting it through your skulls that your out-moded, out-dated and obsolete revenue stream model is DEAD and try embracing the new technology instead of clinging onto something that will just make you look like greedy idiots when you try to fine grannies a million quid for "illegal" (it isn't, it's civil, not criminal) downloading.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster...?
... shurely that's its cousin, the Swimming Spaghetti Monster!
... I thought about doing this back in the 1980s when I started getting interested in holography, but the resolution wasn't up to it at the time.
I'm glad to see that the technology is finally becoming available to do this. (Pity I didn't patent the idea, though...!)
... on earth did they expect?
Big company buys up small company, small company gets subsumed by big company's structure.
End of story.
.... sites like http://www.kissthisguy.com/ which list all the misinterpretations of incomprehensible lyrics...?
Re: On Police bail comments
Don't forget that they'll have had their DNA and fingerprints taken and those records will be kept ad infinitum even if they turn out to have had nothing to do with the crime (if the Police and Government get their way), which has got to be a good thing, hasn't it?
Is that like the Banana Phone...?
(Sorry for the ear-worm!)
Dear Michael Savage...
... sorry, who are you again?
Just because Wacky Jacqui got her panties in a twist, why should we give a damn about you?
The people of Britain.
> If you don't P2P then you don't have a problem.
And if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...
Any other dumb, cliched platitudes you'd like to trot out?
Now consider this:
A couple of weeks ago my Sky+ box glitched whilst I was on holiday and failed to record the episode of Dollhouse that was on.
I didn't want to miss it, but it wasn't available for "legitimate" download from anywhere I could access. So I downloaded it using utorrent instead, watched it, then deleted it.
So was that illegal because I didn't get it from a "legal" source? What copyright did I actually infringe? Was I contributing to terrorism (or whatever) by doing this?
What if I'd said to a mate "You recorded it, can you bung it onto video for me?"
I'm sure in your nice little black-and-white world, I'm a criminal who belongs behind bars.
responses to the consultation...
... had persuaded it to reconsider introducing the threat of disconnection from the internet.
Err, excuse me? "we will be extending the deadline for responses to 29th September 2009"
The fucking Consultation hasn't even *FINISHED* yet, but already you're deciding what you're going to do?
Why not just admit that, like every other damn consultation you've held, it's a complete sham because you're going to do what you like anyway?
How about we all club together and buy Mandy an expensive dinner? Maybe *THAT* is the way to get Government policy changed...?
Regarding previous convictions...
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that no person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission.
So the Government claims that previous convictions will stand sounds like BS to me.
Minister Barbara Follett has written to trade bodies...
... asking them to accept voluntary guidelines until the relevant legislation is passed.
Now what would be *sensible* would be for them to cut out a lot of the nonsense in the VRA which, for instance, means it's an offence for someone to sell R18 videos from a website in this country, but leaves it perfectly legal to purchase them from anywhere in Europe and have them shipped over here.
Of course what will no doubt actually happen instead is that our prudish Nanny State Government will hamstring the adult industry with a whole lot more useless regulations to "protect" us from all that nasty dirty stuff...
... actually Card IV looks like a head-on view of someone riding a Harley Davidson whilst wearing big boots...
"What do make of these Captain?"
"It's a bird, a cow, a horse with a hat on."
- William Shatner in Airplane II
... please explain the words "Prior Art" to the US Patent Lawyers?
What next? A patent on the wheel...?
What about El Ron Hubbard?
He's so unwanted that some Charity Shops and Second Hand Bookshops won't even *buy* (or take for free) his stuff!
Find me a Catholic Bear and I'll give you an answer...!
PS @David Pollard
Regarding Volunteered DNA, the recently ended Home Office consultation proposed that volunteered DNA would not be kept.
Of course that's only a consultation, so does anyone want to take a bet that when the law is brought in, this will be amended because "well, it would be a good idea to keep it, wouldn't it?"
We need a....
... Pope is a Catholic, Bears shit in woods icon...
... if the teams get their way, the Yanks may have to decide which of *two* F1 series they want to join...!
... all the Daily Fail mindset El Reg readers applauding the idea of tying alleged perps to lamp posts so passers by can give them a good beating...
I find it astonishing...
... just how many people are in favour of the sort of "Freedom of Expression" which is defined as "Freedom to say/ read/ look at things that *I* approve of".
Not to mention those who are immediately willing to dismiss anyone who makes or watches such things as "sick" or "not normal" or "not having a healthy mind" or those who think that we need to be "protected" because we're obviously so mentally feeble that we're not capable of exercising our own consciences and not going out and emulating what we might have seen.
Isn't it good that we have people like you who are such fine, upstanding citizens that *you* are capable of deciding for *us* what we should or shouldn't look at!
I'm sure the Taliban would applaud your morality and would want to recruit you for their groups that eg go around beating women who let their burkhas slip because obviously seeing a bit of female skin is just the first step on a slippery slope to the commission of depraved acts...
So Matt 89 doesn't understand this stuff, therefore it should be banned.
Wow, what a great argument!
Personally I don't understand why people would want to regularly watch stories of people being threatened, abused, intimidated, having relationships torn apart and so on, but since these are (apparently) regular staples of EastEnders, presumably there is *some* desire on the parts of some people to watch such stuff.
If Matt 89 or anyone else doesn't like it, then, in the words of Kenny Everett to Mary Whitehouse "You've got a knob, use it".
But don't be so arrogant as to try to tell everyone else that because *you* don't like it, *they* shouldn't be allowed to watch it.
> The comments here show exactly what sort of pathetic tossers are produced by UK society.
Yes, we get Nanny State idiots like the BBFC whose job, it seems, is to "protect" us from seeing anything nasty, just in case it inspires *us* to then go and do something nasty too.
Still, what's wrong with a little Thought Crime here and there?
Of course by not giving it a classification it means that anyone who does download a copy can now be done under the so-called Extreme Pornography legislation (aka the Dangerous Pictures Act) that came in a while back, whereas, beforehand, they were not commiting any offence at all.
One FireFox add on downloaded...
Thanks guys :-)
... to work in their Whip's Office!!!
(Mine's the one with the catalogue of affordable leather products in the pocket...)
Yes, Paul Smith, I *know* what they said in the article. I'm just pointing out that if there was an *unexposed* sample, that would have provided a *cross-check* for contamination.
"it was possible that the glycine we found originated from handling or manufacture of the Stardust spacecraft itself,"
But, of course, they had a control sample that went through all the same processes, but wasn't exposed as the Aerogel was, so they'd be able to compare the two and check for contamination...
... didn't they?
Four years in jail...
... laugh that one off!
It wasn't that long ago...
... that I finally got around to upgrading from 2K to XP (and only because too many programs were no longer being supported under 2K)
If you have an OS that works and does what you need it to, why bother upgrading?
1) Say "Hey, everyone, here's a problem..."
2) Say "Hey, everyone, by co-incidence we have the solution!"
... so, let's see:
1) Go into Home Bargains
2) Act suspiciously, but get out without being challenged
3) They post their CCTV footage
4) You sue for defamation
This started off as looking like an interesting piece on the way that ISPs are trying to take over our browsing (how big a step is it from a mis-typed URL going to a page full of ads to a legitimate URL getting a response of "you don't want to look at that page, you want to look at *this* page"?)
Unfortunately it then rapidly devolved into a barely coherent rant which meandered all over the place and any point that it might have had to make got buried under the sound of axes being ground.
"foolproof and incapable of error"
But, as the old quote has it: "It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
Hmm, your comments above make my post above even more apposite...!
... just modify Police Helmets so the officer's face can't be seen.
Then just give them an ID badge they can display on their chests...
Hang on, doesn't this mean if the Sheriff gets jailed, he can spend time in Joe Arpaio's prison?
I'm sure he'll have fun in there...
Another one for...
... the "Lunatics have taken over the Asylum" files:
* * * * *
A MAN who took photos of illegally-parked cars claims he was stopped and questioned by police while the culprits got away.
Colin Wilson, 26, lives off Gill Bridge Avenue which runs alongside Sunderland Magistrates' Court and Gill Bridge Police Station.
Colin took photographs of vehicles parked directly opposite the court entrance.
He said officers came out of the station and tried to stop him taking pictures of the cars, asked him for ID and asked to look at his camera.
* * * * *
You just can't make this stuff up.
A title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
As The Economist article points out, there is so much political desire to appear "tough" on these issues for fear of being branded "soft" by opponents.
Even daring to suggest that such a law is not workable or not needed is enough to generate negative publicity, so few would dare to do this.
Instead we get this constant battle to "think of the children" by passing ridiculous and unenforceable laws or laws that only serve to devastate the lives of people who are no risk to others.
Still, that doesn't matter as long as the politicians get good media coverage...
- Vid Hubble 'scope scans 200000 ton CHUNKY CRUMBLE ENIGMA
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Apple to grieving sons: NO, you cannot have access to your dead mum's iPad