"accused of" != "guilty of". Even in Russia these days, I've heard.
5654 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"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No, because that means deleting bits before publication, however it can be repealed.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.
Whilst I agree that the higher the speed the more serious the accident, you are the one who is apparently missing the point that you should *not* drive faster than the speed at which you can stop in the distance visible to you. It doesn't matter *what* the limit is, you need to tailor your speed according to the conditions prevailing at the time.
Unfortunately when people have the attitude that because "speed limits are LAW" they assume wrongly that means that the speed indicated by the prevailing limit is a speed that it is safe to drive at rather than thinking intelligently about what they are doing.
There is a debating fallacy known as the False Dilemma where you present someone with two options 1) and 2) as if they're the only ones available and then imply that they have to pick between the two, ignoring the fact that the correct answer is "neither of the above".
Let me give you an example. Last night I came back to Portsmouth from London on the A3. As you leave London this piece of road seems to have speed cameras about every half mile and initially a limit of 40mph which then goes up to 50mph.
Now I'm sure those limits are all sensible and good when the road is chock full of traffic during the day time, but at 2am the road is virtually *EMPTY* and there is absolutely *NO DANGER* in Making Progress along it, but you cannot, simply because of all the bloody cameras.
So you have a choice: trundle along at 40mph or make progress (illegally, of course) then slow down when there's a camera.
Which do you do?
Firstly let me say that I have *NO PROBLEM* with cameras *WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY NEEDED*, but many of the rules on where they are placed are nonsense and bring the whole system into disrepute because all that happens is that drivers slow down for the camera, then speed up once they're past it.
Hiding them just makes the situation worse and still does *nothing* for dealing with people who drive in an irresponsible manner, using mobiles, failing to indicate or look before turning or changing lanes, tailgate, don't make proper observation at junctions and all the other things which *really* add to the dangers of being on the road.
I'm sure I've read a report which said that the radar-controlled signs that flash 30mph if you're approaching them too fast have been much more successful in reducing speeds, but I have been unable to track it down, so if anyone knows where I can find it, I'd be most grateful.
There, fixed it for you!
The CPS will sit on it for a while and then decide that there is "Insufficient evidence" to bring a case...
Now that has *got* to be Cruel and Unusual Punishment!!
On display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"?
(Mine's the one with the Towel and the Electronic Thumb!)
... and a couple of paragraphs detailing how the bank threatened them with legal action for completeness, I hope!
"that their attitude to making data available is that you opt in to everything unless you can figure out how to stop it, bitch".
There, fixed it for you!
"...not that the government is doing them necessarily."
I think that's the point he's trying to make! Every time we hear of data being stolen or left on a laptop or sent on an unencrypted CD through the post shows a fundamental failure of understanding of basic security by Governments and Corporations.
And how many companies produce software which then require multiple patches to fix gaping holes in their security?
What is needed is a fundamental shift in attitude, rather than the "let's get the data or write the software and then fix the problems later."
As you say: "The right time to build up defenses is now, before an incident occurs", but at present too many stable doors are being locked and bolted long after the horse is over the horizon.
"... to prevent a given cell phone from receiving SMS messages and incoming calls. All that's needed is the target's phone number"
Great! Now how do I get the phone number of the annoying twat who is sitting in the Quiet Carriage on the train yakking at the top of their voice and ignoring the signs saying "NO MOBILE PHONES"...?
Nonsense, this is just an updating of the Seven Swords of Wayland!
"but there is evidence that more and more police forces have to engage in fishing expeditions on anyone they like in the hope that they might be able to link them to an actual crime."
There, fixed it for you.
Of course he could have just said "I cannot give a precise reason for this, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN, OMG!!!!1111oneoneeleventyone!!"
... but only just!
'these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between'
And even if they are caught out, very probably nothing will done about it or they will only be given a smack on the wrist and told not to do it again by their bosses.
This is why I fully support the idea of Police being made to have cameras attached to their person whenever they are dealing with the public because they will know that *WE* are watching *THEM*!
Or, more importantly, it would be risking the Safety Camera Partnership's Boss' livelihoods...
Unfortunately I can't find a reference for it at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a report saying that those Radar Controlled signs that flash 30mph if you approach them too fast are, apparently, more effective than Cameras for actually getting people to slow down because they're not an attempt to raise revenue, so they get more respect from road users.
... was contracted out to the Private Sector and now is doing the same job for £150 a hour for "tired city gents"...
Ah, right, yes, a *friend*, of course... ;-)
... I've noticed a sudden increase in messages that "A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding ..." so it seems that it's still rather over-sensitive to pages that take a little while to load.
... are a million to one...!
... but you can bet that The Authorities would love to get their hands on this information (of course, as with Talk Talk's plans, it's for our own good!)
... about things being rushed through Parliament and "lack of transparency"?
Oh the IRONY!!!
"They're going to be based on the number of people who registered for the previous election, not the actual number of people in a constituency."
Erm, in case you're not aware, it is a criminal offence not to complete and return the annual voter registration form.
... he can press to summon the lawyers...?
You know, the one where a lot of innocent people were charged by Jim Gamble and co with downloading CP because they had been the victims of *CREDIT CARD THEFT*??
Yes, that's right their card details had been *stolen*, just like many other people's card details are stolen every year.
So what's to stop someone *stealing* someone's pre-paid credit card and using that to download CP?
Oh, that's right, *nothing*.
Are you sure you don't mean a Violet Wand? (Or were you merely using a euphemism for the male appendage?)
.. you can buy an attachment which fits over the vibrating head which has a soft plastic "extension" allow for for penetration and g-spot stimulation.
And really they're not that noisy, they're only loud in comparison to some other vibrators.
... don't forget you'd be arrested for using un-approved electronic equipment...
... thank you for that intelligent comment detailing the fact that your Human Rights and Civil Liberties in this country now mean diddly-squat and the Police have the right to shoot, beat you or Taser you at their discretion.
Bravo! Now excuse me whilst I trit-trot along here...
It's good to see El Reg post these guidelines, but may I make a few suggestions:
1) The author of an article should have no ability to moderate (or edit) comments. If allowed, this simply leads to a blatant conflict of interest. Also the decision to allow/ not allow comments on an article should be down to El Reg's Editorial or Moderation team, not the individual author.
2) If an article is based on the author's opinion of a published work etc, it should be clearly marked as such. Occasionally some articles have appeared in El Reg which are extraordinarily one-sided yet not marked as "Comment" or "Opinion".
3) It would be useful if, in the "My Posts" section, there was an indication of whether someone else had replied to your comment (eg a line saying "2 replies") to save having to check each one to see if someone has responded.
4) Since you can tick a box to post anonymously, why not have a box to tick that comes up with [NO TITLE], or if you reply to someone else's post without including a title of your own, have the forum system stick in Re: [previous title]
Which is a good thing because if Jim Gamble has anything to say about it, you should be arrested for simply *looking* at that site because it *might* hold CP and that is proof enough of guilt for him...
... they're saving a bunch of money, so if they ditch a few more "big names" they could actually start making some quality programmes again instead of rubbish like 101 Ways to Strictly Come through a Hole in the Wall...
call1899.co.uk or call18866.co.uk or ratebuster.co.uk or...
"executes automatically if an infected USB stick is accessed in Windows Explorer."??
Why the HELL would anyone be putting USB sticks into machines that run these sort of system in the first place???
I suggest you read this article:
In 1980 parking charges were £1 a day.
In 1990 that became £1 per hour
In 1995 that became £2 per hour
In 2000 that became £4 per hour
Now in 2010 it's £5 an hour!
What more, exactly are you getting for that £5 an hour?
What is WC Council getting? Well, they're getting a way to pay down their £22 *million* overspend see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8470804.stm
... yet all they are doing is introducing a £1 charge for parking bays that were, previously, free. There is absolutely *NO* benefit to bikers, no extra security features, no extra parking spaces, nothing that justifies this charge other than it makes money.
Yet somehow this is "in the public interest".
Presumably that "public interest" is that the WC Council doesn't have to make savings elsewhere because they can tax bikers...
... is that, as with many other New Labour laws, the RIPA is vague and ill-defined and pretty much as soon as it was brought in, started experiencing major function creep as, for instance Local Councils etc suddenly realised that "hey, we can spy on people to check they live in the right place to send their kid to this school, the law says we can!".
The aim of the review is to ensure that Investigatory Powers are *properly* regulated and targetted to where they are needed, rather than to where they are wanted.
... is a red light strobing across the front...
May I be the first to welcome our Cylon Overlords!
... tell all your friends!!!!!
... and the Brooklyn Bridge, because someone sold it to me and wrote the bill of sale on the back of a post card of it!!
Polanski's "much more serious crime" was not at issue, what was the issue was that a deal was struck that would have involved him not being jailed after the girl's parents agreed that he should not be imprisoned.
What he then did was to leave the USA after it was suggested that the Judge was going to jail him anyway, which is an entirely different matter.
The girl involved has subsequently said that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to be jailed either.
It seems that, unlike the UK, at least the Swiss aren't willing to turn someone over to the USA without better grounds for extradition that "we want him, hand him over".