Well that's a ringing condemnation from a Watchdog who hasn't the teeth to actually *bite* anyone...
5634 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Well that's a ringing condemnation from a Watchdog who hasn't the teeth to actually *bite* anyone...
... it's Regonaut!
(Unless you want "Astrotard"...?)
Are you addressing me? It's really not clear.
But if you are, no, I don't work for Google, however I do live in the UK where you have the right to take photographs of virtually anything you like if you can see it from a public place (exceptions being eg Ministry of Defence property), you don't need someone's permission to take photographs of them, you don't need anyone's permission to photograph a building and the idea that somehow you can demand royalties is ridiculous even if it is an "original creative work".
It doesn't matter whether you're the Media, Google or Joe Bloggs, (let alone the Metropolitan Police) *NOBODY* has the right to stop you taking pictures.
And as for your irrelevant Straw Man argument of "your defending a multi-national corporation dodging taxes", I'll treat that with the contempt it deserves.
PS In the UK we *do* have the right to a) see our credit records (for a nominal charge) and b) *demand* that any errors be fixed on them. Perhaps you need to get your elected representatives to start *representing* you, instead of the people who paid for their campaigns...
... would be able to roam the streets and take pictures of everyone.
Erm, have you never watched TV news reports or anything else showing street scenes?
Despite what the UK Plod want you to believe there is *NO LAW* preventing you or anyone else (even a 'private' company) from taking pictures of anything you like.
... ah yes, with the 80's girls in the unitards and leg-warmers...
Fond memories... ;-)
... don't worry about the ones who *were* tortured, after all we didn't turn a blind eye *EVERY* time, so that makes it better...
"should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."
Not to mention the careers of US politicians and high ranking officers?
And what when it's the US putting the lives of its partners or innocent civilians at risk...?
(PS The Pentagon has admitted in an internal letter that *NOBODY* has been harmed as a result of the previous set of documents published on Wikileaks)
... just Google for the information!
Blair and Brown their New Labour cronies dug us into a huge financial hole and you think we should have elected them *AGAIN*???
... for the vast majority of their existence humans have lived in one room dwellings with a whole extended family, parents, grandparents, teenagers, children all in the same space. Do you think mummy and daddy turfed everyone else out when they wanted to make a new baby?
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded weak even to him, so he added, “or a plinth. Both is best, o’ course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
- Thud by Terry Pratchett
... actually have the slightest idea what "Sandboxing" is?
Will this be the default mode or as the phrase "offer sandboxing" suggests, something that can be switched on? If so, how many people will actually turn it on if they don't understand it?
"So *YOU* aren't allowed to see it because *WE* don't trust you to behave like sensible adults.
("Us? Oh, we're morally pure, upright citizens, so we can make those judgments for you, Nanny knows best....")
Erm, did Blair and Brown's regimes pass you by...?
I fully agree with the sentiments of "I disagree with what you say..." however with the Right of Freedom of Expression comes the Responsibility to use it sensibly.
Posting messages (as this idiot did) with the *deliberate intent* to cause others distress goes way beyond the limits of responsible comment, consider the difference between my saying "I don't agree with what you're saying" and "Hey, everyone, let's go around to DT's house and give him a good kicking for saying this!"
ie don't worry about fixing problems, just find someone to sue!
Once again the authorities demonstrate their complete lack of competence in dealing with modern technology and end up having rings run around them by everyone else.
I wonder if there's been a tweet of "drunk bloke driving jaguar crashed. he gave me funny handshake so i let him off with a warning"?
Or "saw bunch of chavs burgling house but was too busy nicking car driver for 33 mph in 30 limit on empty road"?
... was looking at the pics and also "getting a grip"?!
Obviously someone was THINKING OF TEH CHILDREN!!!111111!!!oneoneeleventyone1!!11!!
... will the message to your mobile be free, or is there going to be a "small fee" to cover "administration" or some such?
... you know the rest.
"... because I could see the writing was on the wall and I was going to get the push anyway. So now I can sit here and say "Won't Someone Think of Me... erm... I mean The Children!" and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of being "pro-paedo" because what they are doing is not what *I* say is "best for children" and after Operation Ore etc I should know!"
Go, go now and try not to let the door hit your arse on the way out!
Given that you're posting as AC, I have no idea if you're the same AC that came out with the nonsense of "Let's can it. Then you can walk your daughter's class to the local post office. You and previously convicted paedophiles." or not.
Presuming you are, however, you've totally missed the point I was making that a record of a "prior conviction" *WILL* include such miscarriages of justice as the Operation Ore Cautions which were induced because of inadequate "standards of proof".
So innocent and harmless people will be barred from working with children because they've been tainted with false accusations by Gamble and co.
Oh, and calling someone a "deluded wingnut" etc etc really doesn't add anything to the validity of your argument...
... so hearsay and gossip once again rule over substantiated allegations...
"a CRB check CAN prove someone IS / WAS ... does sexual preference change after a few years?"
Might I remind you of Operation Ore? Have you forgotten that people were brow-beaten into accepting Cautions for Child Porn offences which they had *NEVER* committed (they had just been the victim of credit card fraud) rather than have their names and reputations dragged through the Courts by Jim Gamble and co such that even if (when) they were acquitted, the taint of that charge would still linger?
Except, of course, now they have accepted that Caution, the CRB check *WILL* pick up on that and that is "proof" they are a paedophile, except, of course, they never were.
Meanwhile someone who wasn't caught by Gamble and Co but who has never been caught is obviously "safe" to work with children...
... maybe we'll see some sense returning!
And can *YOU* prove you're not a paedophile?
Go on, we're waiting...
Ah, they must be buying OEM supplies from Epson or HP...
Avoiding paying tax is sensible, evading paying tax is illegal.
Spending government money in sensible ways is what we *want* them to do!
... with his inimitable brand of incomprehensible commentary!
Ah, so Google is now the Ministry of Truth...
Or just pay them by the hour...
... the reason for the lack of spectators at many events?
They're all too busy being entertained by the thousands of sex workers....
... amidst all the "Hah! We were right all along!" gloating from both sides I put in a bid for us simply trying to use the available energy resources *more efficiently* thus reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses/ soot/ other pollutants and extending the lifespan of limited fossil fuel supplies whilst we try to find viable alternatives.
But I doubt anyone will pay attention as usual.
... wearing a shirt saying "It's not going to lick itself" with an arrow pointing downwards?!
... was to give Maggie a big chunk of money which she could use to buy the next election!
Unfortunately what we now have is oligopoly/ virtual monopoly suppliers who have no interest in *actually* competing with each other (because that will harm their profits) so they make it as hard as possible for the consumer to compare like with like and use all sorts of confusion marketing techniques to baffle people into paying more for their gas, electricity or water than they need to.
... but what's the betting that it's so complicated to set up that most people will just go for the default settings?
... Societe General have been *completely exonerated* by the Court who judged them to be totally blameless in this matter despite what appear to be blatantly inadequate security precautions and a lack of monitoring systems which should have prevented this sort of thing from happening in the first place.
... thinking that someone can do a better job that self-styled "protector of the children" and empire builder Jim Gamble mean that you are "pro-paedophile"???
He has probably done *more* to bring child protection into disrepute than anyone by pandering to the Tabloid Press and alienating the industry with his arrogant "do it my way or I'll get the media to attack your reputations" bully boy tactics and the sooner he's gone the better.
... For a pair of brown eyes
... the cyclonic hum of a trillion twisting gears, all air gone earthquake-dark in a mist of oil, in the fractioned heat of intermeshing wheels. Black seamless pavements, uncounted tributary rivulets for the frantic travels of the punched-out lace of data, the ghosts of history loosed in this hot shining necropolis. Paper-thin faces billow like sails, twisting, yawning, tumbling through the empty streets, human faces that are borrowed masks, and lenses for a peering Eye.
- The Difference Engine, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling
... The Quango and Jimmy's Empire Building!!!
Go and good riddance!
"You have all these rights, apart from when we decide that you don't..."
... the usual suspects...
No, you are the one who has missed my point.
You brought in the political "left" and "right" which are completely irrelevant to this story and then tried to stop anyone from down-voting your post by implying that, if they did, they were "leftist leading simple thinking".
You may have had a reasonable point, but you blew it by using tactics like these.
Watch the right-winger try to dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as "leftist leading simple thinking" because obviously no right(!) thinking person would disagree...
It is high time that every country recognised that "Women's Rights" *INCLUDES* the right of a woman to decide *for herself* what she does with her body and to enjoy the same protections from violence and crime that everyone else does!
At what rate? Is it 0800 or 0870 or perhaps a premium rate number?
Why not simply "press 0 if you don' t want us to call you again"???
Getting paid to drive a taxi, white van, truck or anything else does *NOT* make someone a "professional driver"!
As you mention, those who think of themselves as "professional drivers" are often extremely *bad* drivers because they think they know it all and probably think they have right of way over everything else on the road too which makes them very dangerous.
I can hear a couple of companies of Trademark Lawyers firing up their word processors...