"it’s clear that WikiLeaks...
"...doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content"
Err, which part of Wiki *LEAKS* didn't you understand when you took their money for hosting...??
5948 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"...doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content"
Err, which part of Wiki *LEAKS* didn't you understand when you took their money for hosting...??
I once lived in a house that had been converted into three flats. Out of interest, having had problems with a credit card application, I did some checking with the Post Office, credit reference agencies etc and found no less than *TEN* addresses related to the property: Garden Flat, Basement Flat, Hall Floor Flat, Ground Floor Flat, Top Flat, Flat 1, Flat 2, Flat 3, Number 59 and the name of the Guest House that was converted to flats!
"... suggest voters punished England for its media's "hostile" coverage of allegations of corruption at Fifa"
Except why didn't Putin attend? Maybe he knew the votes were already bought and paid for...!
(Not that I give a crap anyway)
I'LL JUST WRITE ALL MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS FROM NOW ON, OK!
The CAPITALS gag wasn't particularly FUNNY the FIRST TIME.
Now it's just getting TEDIOUS!
... People who go into Government work have little experience or knowledge of the real business world which is why they constantly get shafted (and, by inference, get us shafted) by wily businesses who create massively unbalanced contracts where all the value goes to the business and all the costs go to the Government.
Of course it doesn't help when even the people who *should* know better (Alastair Darling comes to mind) sign contracts with massive penalty clauses which mean that it's cheaper to throw more public money into them than try to cancel the worthless contract.
"If gays wanted to be taken more seriously they would stop acting like spoiled children when they don't get their way each and every time and learn to listen to those who oppose and work toward a workable solution"
And WTF is this "workable solution" you speak of? Most gays (and, indeed, others who enjoy forms of "alternative sexuality") simply want other people to *MIND THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS* and stop trying to tell them what they should or shouldn't do based on the critics' view of what is "right and proper".
The majority of gays don't make arrogant pronouncements like this guy has, they just want to be left alone to live their own lives in peace and quiet, but if some prat opens their big mouth and starts implying that eg gay = paedophile then they get all the derision they deserve.
"...shouldn't have been able to trawl as much classified information as he allegedly did."
No shit, Sherlock!
I've got most of those installed, but I can see there's a couple I'm missing.
It's just a shame that the *user* has to put so much effort into ensuring their privacy instead of being *asked* whether they want their details and browsing habits tracked :-(
"...they are classified because their release could cause harm to the state, and or individuals therein."
I've heard it said (although I can't find a cite at the moment) that the menus for the meals served at Number 10 used to be Classified as "Secret"!
The Yanks are more worried because the release of these documents could cause harm to the careers of individuals in their Government.
... "England? Isn't that in London?"
... I'll opt for Contact Lenses any day, but I wouldn't want to swap to a different pair just to watch TV!
I don't know who has downvoted me, however if it is because I said that the CCA doesn't apply to PayPal, I quote Which? Magazine who point out that: "Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act doesn't apply to Paypal transactions."
See http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/online-shopping/paypal---your-rights/paypal-protection-problems/ for details.
Unfortunately, as with services like PayPal etc, the Card Companies will argue that they held up their end of the deal when they delivered your money to the payment system and anything that happens after that is not their problem :-(
California is GMT -8 hours, so 2:30am should be 6:30pm there (assuming no different Daylight Savings in effect)
The "consultation is shorter than normal and is not being run in a way that encourages public engagement."
What? Governments running "consultations" that are rigged to ensure that they get the answer they want? Never!
... let's forget about presumption of innocence, let's forget about the fact that hosts may not *know* that this stuff is on their servers, let's not bother with saying "will you take this stuff down?" let's just put on the jackboots and kick in their doors/ take away their domain names and then leave them with the bill for sorting the mess out.
Let's take down anything that you and the Nanny State don't like, whilst we Think Of The Children!
And how will they get this "satisfaction"...?!
Seriously, though, the sort of nonsensical language coming out of the Met is as bad as the last Government's idea of getting members of the WI to write to newspapers etc as "concerned citizens" worried about whether some of the adverts in the back of their publications might be exploiting trafficked women in the hope that it would deter them from accepting the ads in the first place.
For Richard Martin to say "criminal liability can arise in certain circumstances where evidence clearly shows that the advertising in question supports or promotes offences associated to trafficking, exploitation or proceeds of crime" is a barely veiled threat implying that the publishers will, somehow, be liable if the Police find out an escort agency etc is offering women who are forced into the work against their will, but this is as ridiculous as prosecuting the paper if someone starts flogging stolen goods through the Small Ads because obviously the publishers should have checked to see if the goods were kosher before they accepted the ad...
"if they are the product of a loving family that is united. I fail to see how allowing hookers will benefit our society, for which family is its beating heart."
And I fail to see how this version of the "Won't Someone Think of the Children!!!" argument has *anything* to do with the subject under discussion.
This has nothing to do with children, it is to do with the right of *adults* to make up their *own* minds what they do with their bodies and their lives.
Your comment about "blind liberals" suggests that you're just a "reactionary conservative" who will automatically say "no, no, no!" to anything that you don't like on the grounds that "I don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to do it" and this is backed up where you claim that "gambling, hookers, drugs" are "common sense bad things" and then claim that "they are proven by studies to cause more problems that solutions" which is utter nonsense.
The only "studies" that "prove" this are ones that have been set up by people like the Poppy Project who have a vested interest (like you) in banning something they don't like and they will use any dubious methodology and skewed results to back up their questionable claims.
"Since when is legalising hookers a good thing"? Since, as with any form of prohibition, people have begun to realise that banning something *doesn't* make it go away, in fact it just drives it and the people involved *into* the hands of criminals and takes away the protections which they should be entitled to under the law.
That is real "common sense", you just cannot (or will not) understand it.
This show was brilliant, from the death of the famous actor "special guest" at the start to the "freeze frame" gag at the end and not forgetting the Red Rock cider ads that riffed off it years later.
So anyone who disagrees with you is a Daily Mail reader, eh? Yeah, sure.
I think you rather miss the point, though, you say "While we may not like everything our governments do, at least in this part of the World we have the opportunity to say so, publicly." but this is not enough, because they are doing it *IN OUR NAMES* and we should know what they are doing "for" us and be able to hold them to account instead of having it brushed under the carpet with a "Secret" tag on it.
And for you to suggest that Assange should "avoid dark alleyways" just reinforces this: You seem to think that it is OK for our "democratic" Governments to harm those who call them to account and show what they are up to. But I suppose that's ok, because it's for our own good, isn't it??
... if you want peace through superior firepower...
The AM-15 holds up to a 275 round magazine!
... because of the *other* idiots who think that, by regulating the internet, they'll be able to protect the first lot of idiots who are gullible enough to fall for this scam!
... Avenue Q for more details!
I use 1899.com (because it's a damn sight cheaper without needing to pay for an over-priced bundle package!) so I dial an area code for all local numbers anyway.
It's not hard.
Before they create an appeals process, how about they create a process where they actually *LOOK* at the sites that the Police want to censor and *CHECK* to see if anything illegal is going on there instead of saying "Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir, we'll take it down right away on your say-so and then deal with the poor sod on the other end whose business might end up being wrecked"
... because of my Epson printer's habit of, even when I select "black only", still using the colour inks (which I rarely use) and I was finding that I was having to replace an entire set of Cyan, Magenta and Yellow cartridges without *ever* printing anything in colour!
I also use a chip resetter because I can get an extra 20-30 pages of printing from a cartridge that the printer says is "empty".
I've very rarely had any problems with the compatibles, if I do, a quick swap to the cleaning cartridge sorts it out and I count the savings...
After all there's a whole spectrum of colours, so how about alert levels including Puce, Taupe, Salmon Pink, Tangerine, Tea Rose, Fire Engine Red which would allow precise shadings(!) of meaning of each level!
(Mine's the one of many colors ;-) )
... Acacia Avenue Genito-Urinary Medical Centre...
On one side we've got MPs demanding that all Net users must provide ID to prove they're over 18 before they're allowed to access porn and now, on the other side we've got crooks who are already *actively exploiting* this sort of nonsense!
I think you mean "Laughable"!
It's just the Mary Whitehouse types trying to find any excuse they can to stop people from looking at stuff they don't like saying "We don't like this, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to see it".
"BT are responsible for implementing an opt-in for 'verified over 18s' to telephone sex/chat lines."
This was tried back in the days of 0898 numbers whereby, in order to be able to call these numbers, you had to opt-in by contacting BT and asking them to enable this service on your phone line.
Of course what this meant is that revenue for companies providing these completely legal services suddenly plummeted because few people were actually willing to admit to wanting to access these numbers, but simply resulted in providers of these services moving overseas or shifting to a direct credit card payment model.
You can guarantee that similar things will happen if this new opt-in is introduced, providers will always find a way of by-passing this sort of nonsense.
... The Great Smoke Wall of Australia?
After all, there's no smoke without fire...
Anyone who sends me their "annual Christmas message to friends and acquaintances" automatically gets excommunicated!
You've got a good point, eg the recent Venus and eroFame shows in Berlin were extremely well attended and there was none of the nonsense from this country of Westminster Council demanding that the show pay £20,000 for a "sex establishment licence" for three days, nor was there a doubling of the stall fees for anyone displaying phallic shaped vibrators.
Obviously those depraved Europeans are beyond redemption anyway, whereas we Brits can still be protected from the "tide of perversion" threatening to swamp our green and pleasant land...!
"Do you not think the problem is that the show no longer really has a target audience?"
I think that's certainly a part of it, but it's the fault of the organisers for failing to realise this about five years ago.
Speaking as someone who has attended these shows since they started and exhibited leather BDSM gear at four of them, I think the expression needed is "Dead Show Walking".
Standing on the (virtually empty) gallery level and looking down it was clear to see the huge amounts of empty space between the stalls which, ten years ago, would have been filled with exhibitors, because so many of the small niche suppliers have been completely priced out of attending.
There was virtually *nothing* at the show which made you thing "Wow! That's new and different", instead it was pretty much the same old same-old and you found yourself asking what board game designers and the RSPB were doing there (at least they didn't have the "tooth whitening treatment" stalls of a couple of years ago!)
The Erotica show is a shambling mockery of what it was, caused mostly by the greed of the organisers who are more interested in making as much money out of it as they can rather than making it a showcase for the best of the UK Adult Industry.
... printed in thirty seven different fonts because, well, they're there to be used, aren't they!
... from the line just before the one you quoted:
"One leading manufacturer said today that its scanning machines were programmed to generate occasional false positives in order to keep staff alert."
WTF? Scanners *designed* to create False Positives? And what happens to the poor fecker whose luggage is in the scanner when the machine goes "PING"?
Maybe he finds himself hustled off to a private room to find someone with a pair of rubber gloves and gets a free listing on a "To Be Watched" list...
You really can't let this one go, can you?
*Why* FFS do you or anyone else think that harassing this bloke in pointless and vindictive ways is going to make the world a better place? Do you really think that the authorities going on "fishing expeditions" like this in the *hope* that they can find something to convict him of is a reasonable use of their powers?
You seem to be in favour of a Police State where anyone who doesn't behave in the "approved manner" can be stopped, questioned, searched and so on "just to teach them a lesson", I, on the other hand, will leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security".
Please feel free to have the last word.
You are completely missing the point and your comparisons to hardware stores etc is really not helping your case.
Imagine you were that hardware store owner and the authorities, instead of asking you to stop selling the lock-picking kits, started having the Police pull you over every few days to check that your car was "road worthy" or you kept getting pulled in for questioning because "someone answering your description had been seen exposing himself to little girls" or whatever? Would *you* consider that to be reasonable?
Again I point out if someone has committed a *CRIMINAL OFFENCE* then by all means arrest them and charge them and test the evidence in a Court of Law, but to simply harass someone because they're simply doing something you don't like leads us ever further down the path of a Police State.
The point I am making is that just because he pointed out flaws in a browser and released tools that could exploit them does *NOT* justify hassling him for wanting to travel on an aeroplane!
Do the Authorities think that, somehow, he's going to hack into the aircraft's computers and take it over and fly it by remote control?!
If they think he has committed a criminal offence, fine, arrest him and charge him then test the evidence in a Court of Law. But for the State to harass someone like this for *NO* good reason is a complete abuse of power.
PS The rest of your arguments read like "OMG won't someone think of the children/ terrorists/ bogeymen who might do bad things with this stuff, so we shouldn't let *anyone* know about these things!!!"
"That is aiding and abetting a criminal activity"
And I've discovered a way to make cars go faster so they can get away from the Police more easily.
Or perhaps I've released a way to encrypt Hard Drive data so the Authorities can't read it.
Or maybe I've posted a thread on how to use a VPN to stop the Security Services from intercepting and reading my communications...
All of these will, of course, make it easier for criminals to evade the law, so anyone who does the same should be harassed whenever they want to travel by air...
This case has been a ridiculous travesty of justice as a result of a humourless official and authorities who don't like people mocking their Security Theatre, so decided to make this poor sod a scapegoat.
Given that this message was so "menacing" (even though it was originally deemed "non-credible" and the Police said "there is no evidence at this stage that this is anything other than a foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see"), how come all the people who have re-tweeted it under the IAmSparatacus not also been arrested and charged? After all, that's clearly evidence of a mass threat to airport security...!
You mean like the nonsense that comes out of the assorted churches of this world...?
... to the girl in the corner who, boy, tried to warn you, that it would turn into a Ballroom Blitz (Ballroom Blitz)!
I'm not American and I know that the English Caution runs "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
It does not matter whether he has been convicted or not, he is still entitled to maintain his silence if he believes that to break that silence would incriminate him. This is a right which has been confirmed by the European Court on Human Rights.
For the Judge to issue an ultimatum "give up your right to silence or we'll jail you" is unconscionable.
... you're criticising TBL for not having a crystal ball which would allow him to forecast exactly how the web would be used 20 years from its inception?
Why not criticise Henry Ford for the mass produced motor car, allowing criminals a method of getting away from the Police or Fox-Talbot for creating a method of photography which would allow child pornography or Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone which would let people make dirty phone calls whilst you're at it???