5140 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
Hey, don't be so nasty...
... to the chimpanzees!
And in related news...
... Page 3 Stunna Lisa Lovely, 19, from Lincoln said "Wow! It's great that the soaraway Sun is taking over this vital job otherwise who knows who might be probing us when we're in bed!"
And in other news...
... a group of male researchers claimed that the existence of the clitoris was a myth because they couldn't find it...
Is this the...
"a material which generates electricity when squeezed, mashed or wobbled"
Excuse me, miss, but I noticed your laptop battery is running a bit low, may I lend you a hand or two...?
Politicians have no clue about anything.
And you clearly have no idea how to construct a sensible argument!
You complain about the "sheer idiocy" of the arguments, but then you go from "we don't need to go back to the moon" to "Technically, you don't need to eat either". Tell me, have you ever heard the expression "Straw Man"?
The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
Dear Terry H, try doing a little basic research before digging up another long-discredited Zombie Argument:
The previous post...
... was brought to you by Fox News.
Why do modern dictionaries insist on including phrases these days?
Because those phrases are part of the language and the point of a dictionary is to enable people to comprehend the language as it is use.
For instance you could look up the words "dick" and "head" separately but...
@"It’s hard to sit and read the dictionary..."
Yeah, but I skipped to the end and found that the Zebra did it...
If I was their teacher...
... I'd set them an assignment on the Thomas Bowdler:
(Followed by one on the First Amendment...!)
That has to be...
... one of the most stupid examples of hobby-horse riding I've seen in a long time!
I have been to naturist events, I don't have an over-active sense of body-modesty, but just because British Naturism thinks that others shouldn't either is *NO* justification for treating everyone (me included) as a potential terrorist in another piece of nonsensical Security Theatre.
@We All Have Equal Rights
But don't you *want* a third glorious decade of total law enforcement...?!
You realise of course...
... that the next move will be to introduce corporate sponsorship of these scanners...
"Excuse me, Sir, would you step into this room a moment?"
"What's the problem?"
"Well, I couldn't help but notice that you are, shall we say, somewhat under-endowed, but our sponsors, MegaGrow(tm) supply these excellent pills..."
If you think this is a problem...
... then I strongly recommend you don't google for People of Walmart...!!
... it's because we're Thinking Of The Children(tm)!
We're protecting the poor little darlings from all those dangers out there, especially all those paedos who are lurking on every street corner.
Far better that our children die early from coronary heart disease...
... no shaved pubes either because that makes the woman "look like a child" too and that will obviously encourage paedophilic thoughts.
I just have to wonder, though, in whose minds these thoughts are being created, because it sounds to me like it's those passing the laws who are having them...
.. that following the introduction of the Dangerous Pictures Act in the UK we now have the Dangerous Drawings Act which, like the Australian Law, means it is "an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child."
It is sufficient that an image *looks* like a child (in someone else's eyes) that will get you convicted.
Great, another victory for liberty and common sense...
"who is there to hit??"
The person out for a walk, minding their own business who doesn't expect some prat to be riding along using a netbook instead of looking where they're going!
(I'm sure you've heard the expression "Sorry, Mate, I didn't see you...")
"i see some paedos have been in to disapprove of my comment."
And there you have a perfect example why a law like this is a bad idea because "anyone who disagrees with it or anyone who supports it must be a paedo!"
Forget about proof. Forget about due process of law. Forget about presumption of innocence, all we need now is suspicion and gossip and hearsay to ruin someone's life.
Oh and FYI the UK Police know where over *ninety eight percent* of all registered sex-offenders live.
In the USA where they have "Megan's Law" it's estimated that *twenty five percent* of registered sex-offenders have absconded.
I'm sure there's a conclusion that can be drawn...
Dear El Reg:
Keep taking the tablets...
Yes, it's entirely legal. It's no different from paying any other professional (lawyer, IFA, plumber etc) for their time.
The only difference is in the minds of Harperson et al who think that "I don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to do it", which has been the rationale behind much of their stupid and unworkable legislation like the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings Acts.
@ Well how about a non-IT solutiion?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or being ironic or just being stupid here.
If a woman works in a flat on her own and pays her rent from that money, she is not breaking any laws, nor is the landlord if they take the rent. And how is the Landlord going to *know* what the woman is doing to earn her money unless the landlord starts prying into the private affairs of everyone living in his building?
Don't reguate: Decriminalise
The problem with legislating prostitution is that, especially with a Government like this one, they'd come up with a virtually unworkable system that would end up over-loading the industry (for that is what it is) with pointless and useless regulations.
There are already examples of stupidity like this, eg if two women work at one address for their own safety, that is classed as "running a brothel" which is illegal. If they employ a security guard, he will be classed as a pimp and "living off immoral earnings". They can employ a "maid" to answer the door, but she can *only* be paid by the client giving her a tip (don't snigger) because, again, if she gets any money from the girl, she will be breaking the law.
All of those laws and many others should be struck off the statute books before there's even the slightest thought of introducing new ones, but that would be sensible...
Google "owns" the motorway...
... which most people drive on.
Others may own the A Roads and B Roads, but they get less traffic because Google pretty much has a hammer-lock on the easiest route.
Buying a new car won't change this.
... isn't this in breach of FCC rules on the use of mobile devices in flight...?!
Wow! So you can hack a twitter account...
... and then...?
Who gives a fuck?!
"to maintain political stability..."
Translation: To maintain the current corrupt rulers and administration in their jobs because they know that they'll be first against the wall when the next revolution comes...
So what's that in Bulgarian Funbags?
... unless you can prove you're innocent.
Sounds like typical NuLabour.
So why not just...
... clean your damn teeth properly (and floss as well) and then you'll not have to suffer at all...!!
... On Budget...
Pick any two from three.
... someone from the "Nothing to Hide" Brigade misses the point and it's more than a little ironic that you post from behind the shield of being an Anonymous Coward!
The point is not that the data is held on "various databases", the point (well, one of them) is that all that data will be held on *ONE* database and that it will be *YOUR* job to ensure that *THEY* have the right information and *YOU* will be punished by a fine if you don't!
And whilst the Government has been claiming that "have no plans" to make it compulsory to carry these cards, it's clear from what's been leaked that that is their ultimate aim, breaching the long established Common Law Right to "Go about your lawful business without let or hindrance".
Your Zombie Arguments have already been comprehensively knocked down in previous articles on El Reg, why not go back and actually look instead of digging them up once more?
"... had generally been given little opportunity to debate such counter-terrorism powers".
Well of course they hadn't, because nobody needs to debate such powers, do they? It's because we're being attacked and it's to protect the public and we're thinking of the children and so on, so how could anyone disagree with such things? That would be unpatriotic, wouldn't it?
Hang on, why does that ring a bell? Oh yes...
"[...] the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Herman Goering
You are being watched!
"[...] in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end."
George Orwell - 1984
Which party has actually bothered to put up *ANY* real opposition to NuLabour's nonsense? Here's a hint, it ain't the Tories.
They had the chance to kill idiocy like the Extreme Porn legislation, but they didn't because, as one Tory Peer admitted to me "We don't support Lib Dem amendments".
Wow! Thanks, guys...
Why not one for the guys...?
Oh, because perhaps a woman shouting out "give this guy a shot-glass of beer" might not be to their liking...?
Or just "not as bad"?
(Worse would pretty much be impossible!)
UK border database on target and budget, says Home Office...
... as a flock of pigs flew past a blue moon.
... a full fuel tank!
Another nail in the coffin...
... of the US tourist industry.
Be afraid, be VERY afraid...!
The eeeevil terrerist bogeymen are out there! They're coming to get yooouuu! They're around every corner, they're behind every tree. They might be on your train or bus or plane. So if you see someone who's a bit different, who doesn't fit in, who follows a different religion that you don't understand, run, don't walk to your nearest friendly Policeman who will ensure that they get checked over and maybe a good kicking if they deserve it for being foreign.
Or maybe just:
Vote Fascist for a third decade of total law enforcement!
Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin.
... HMRC are really going to make it easy for you to get money back from them...!
... Or just figuring who might have a good collection of porn on their laptop...?
... we could have such a system in this country...!
I'll drink to that!
However will we survive...?
... We'll have a bunch of over-paid prima-donnas prancing around whilst tedious commentators keep making references to a victory that was close on half a century ago and there won't be a crap song which will be instantly forgotten...
... Tell you what, I'll compose one, to be played on the world's smallest violin...
"out of curiosity..."?
So when all of our records are on the NHS spine and the National Identity Register and a whole lot of others besides, a *LOT* of people are going to have their curiosity satisfied...
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor