4077 posts • joined Friday 19th January 2007 17:59 GMT
"so what is being said here?" Well, it's obviously something which has gone completely over your head!
You start off with the classic scare tactic of the threat to your "Mrs. and lil ones" and back it up with a mocking reference to the "harmless" formula, thus neatly ignoring the difficulties of actually making it and getting it on a plane, plus the tedious implication that "you're all hypocrites who would change their minds if it happened to you".
You then go on with "Thousands of flights daily, dozens of crashes each decade" well, there are estimated to be at least 60,000+ flights per day or 22million per year. So even if there 48 crashes a decade ("dozens"), the odds of you (or your Mrs. and lil ones) being a victim are about one in 4.5million, now compare that to the odds of being killed in a road accident.
"Flying isn't something most of the world gets to do-it's a priviledge of the affluent in a wealthy society." Oh dear, is this the politics of envy? We shouldn't fly because others can't afford to?
"People's obsession with themselves and their "only care about Number One!" attitude is the only thing being "denied" here."
Umm, I don't "only care about Number One" I care about the civil rights and liberties of *everyone* (even yours!) and think that they are more precious than surrendering to ignorance about the "dangers" we face according to doom-mongers like you!
"It must be interesting being so arrogant that you'll spend hours writing articles to try to discredit security experts rather than have to spend a few minutes having airport security check your shampoo bottles."
It must be interesting being so ill-informed and stupid that you'll spend hours writing posts like yours without bothering to check basic facts first.
"This is the world you wanted. You wanted your news articles of terror, to encourage terrorists to think America and Britain were weak. But you lost control of that and it turned against you. Sorry, liberals and socialists. Better luck next time."
What on *earth* are you talking about now? Who, exactly "wanted to encourage" this? You, on the other hand, want to encourage *us* to think that we are "weak" and so we will cave into your nonsense and allow our liberties (you know, the ones that the terrorists want to destroy!) to be torn down to "protect us"! Well bravo! This is the world *YOU* wanted!
"Stop the Propaganda"? I agree, you stop spouting this nonsense propaganda that says that because *you* can't understand basic facts, *we* should surrender our liberties!
No safe place...
> It should now be clear to everyone that there is no safe hiding place for the proceeds of tax evasion.
And what about a "safe hiding place" for all the DNA and ID and Registration Number and so on data that our Government wants to collect from us?
I wonder how much some lowly clerk on the UK's National Identity Database would have to be paid to copy it all off onto a few CDs and bung it over to another interested party...?!
Her DNA is on file...
... so the next time any woman tries to charter a yacht, not only will she have to present the appropriate certificate, her DNA will be sampled and checked to make sure that...
... oh I can't be bothered.
ALL HANDS, ABANDON SHIP!
(PS Jolly Roger icon for obvious reasons ;-) )
Re: wear and tear on virgins...
The old Druids who ruled over Anglesey,
Did things that were dubious in taste.
They sacrificed virgins for breakfast.
... and think of the waste!
- From Poems and Pints (1970s BBC show)
@Is it just me?
No, it's not just you.
"Phonepayplus" is a stupid name which gives its work no credibility whatsoever.
There again, ICSTIS had very little credibility either, given that it was often an almost completely toothless watchdog.
@Just remember the Foreign Office advice:
"Don't bother visiting America, go somewhere else instead!"
PS "The Ring of Steel" in London was more commonly known as "The Ring of Tissue Paper" given how easy it was to get through...
Re: Truth Amidst Opinions
@ Ausländische fränkische Arzt
> Have I managed to present a convincing counter-argument to Chris C's "what's wrong with Porn?"
No, what you've done is to cobble together a whole bunch of the same old claims, assertions and "think of the children" fallacies without any factual proof and conflate them into something resembling a Daily Mail style rant.
> I can state categorically that there is a world of difference between sex education and pornography.
Well duh! No, really? But, wait a minute...
> pornography often portrays pedophilic, bestial, violent, voyeuristic, homosexual or multiple partner sexuality
Let's get out the Big Brush to tar all porn with...!
> which has been proven to be disturbing to children--as well as many adults.
Proven by whom? What research are you citing? If you're an "educator" surely you can quote sources? And I like the way that you manage to associate, for instance, homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality! Which century are you living in?
> Numerous of our children have been intentionally exposed to pornography as a gateway to establishing a pedophiliac sexual relationship with them.
And many more of them have found porn in their parents wardrobe or under their beds and looked at it without a problem. But still, let's drag out the tabloid bogeyman of "evil strangers who want to molest your child" (and again you attack homosexuals, do you have an anti-gay agenda?) whilst ignoring the fact that most abuse happens *in* a familial relationship.
> there is a growing body of evidence that affording children the greatest degree of innocence for the longest period possible gives them the greatest chances of a fulfilled and productive life.
Again, *where* is this evidence? Countries like the UK and the USA seem to think that "affording children the greatest degree of innocence..." by denying them access to sex education is a benefit. Oddly enough, these are the two Western countries with the highest level of teen pregnancy.
> I believe that pornography is a selfish indulgence that is good for no one. But I also believe this is a decision each adult must make for themselves.
Yet you seem to want to impose *your* views on others *instead* of letting them make that decision for themselves.
"A convincing counter-argument"?
3/10 - See me.
The Parents Television Council...
... 'describes itself as "the nation’s most influential advocacy organisation protecting children against sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment"'
In other words, a bunch of narrow-minded, puritanical, interfering prod-noses who think that anything they don't like is, ipso facto, unacceptable.
The same sort of people who forced the writers of Grey's Anatomy to stop using the medically entirely valid word "vagina" in their stories and replace it with the childish "va-jay-jay"!
What a bunch of cunts!
I just have to wonder...
... Whether those offering the "compensation packages" are actually just spammers/ ID thieves who are getting gullible people to *pay them* to harvest their details...!
"All we need to verify your claim is your name, address, bank details, credit card number, mother's maiden name...!"
> in about nine months, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be our President-Elect, and our Government will be taking steps to restore our Country's good name.
I really, *really* wish I could believe this. Unfortunately it is even easier to believe that when the Dems get into power, they'll start backtracking and saying "well we can't remove X or Y provisions or re-introduce Z because we're not safe yet"...
PS @Mark: I've been thinking about taking a snowboarding holiday in the USA, but not when I'm going to be treated as a potential terrorist for doing so...
@AC and DaveTheRave
AC: "what evidence do you have for either part of your statement?"
To quote Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty:
“Our reluctance to use phone tap evidence in terror cases like most other countries is frankly mind-boggling. Surely the Government and police recognise that this is a far more effective tool than bringing back internment by holding suspects for 90 days without charge.”
Dave: "I wouldn't think it would be difficult to falsify audio recordings."
Other have already mentioned the De Menezes "faked" photo and taking comments out of context, but consider also if the Security Services attempted to falsify recordings eg by inserting "doctored" phrases, all it would take is *one* example of someone being able to show (eg by recording their own conversations) that such a recording had been faked to cast serious doubt on *all* such evidence in future.
"motorcycles are hugely more dangerous than cars" ???
In around two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles and other vehicles, it is the fault of the other vehicle's operator for failing to undertake proper observation in the first place or observing, but failing to correctly judge the speed of a bike and underestimating the bike’s time of arrival (RoSPA).
Graham's three rules of defensive riding:
1) Don't assume they've seen you.
2) Don't assume they'll respect your right of way.
3) Do assume that they're going to do something which will kill you unless *you* get out of *their* way.
That's not the way it should be (car drivers should learn to *expect* a bike to be coming and check more carefully) but thinking "Hah! I was in the right!" when you're flying through the air won't make the ground hurt any less...
It's ironic that...
... this is "considered against the background of rapidly-eroding civil liberties" but the civil liberty supporters are actually *in favour* of allowing wiretap evidence to be used to secure convictions, whereas the Security Services oppose it.
Perhaps it's because allows proper examination of claims that "he's a terrorist, we know he is, we say he is, but you're not allowed to check our findings, so you'll just have to let us lock him up for 90 days until we can beat^H^H^H^ extract a confession".
Something sounds familiar....
"a typical vegetarian has dry and fragile hair, dull eyes and unhealthy complexion. They can hardly stand criticism and have a low boiling point. They raise their voice, swing their arms and splutter when arguing. They are weak even in their logic."
Why does this sound so similar to the old warnings about the "dangers" of masturbation, ie how it would lead to a weak constitution, sallow skin, stunt your growth etc etc...?!
... Who gets to play Sauron and his buddies?
I can think of a few I'd like to nominate...
I always liked Frontier Elite's version
Where you'd get messages like "We would like <name>'s career to have a fitting ending in the XYZ system" :-)
And what if...
... his deals hadn't gone tits-up?
It's only because he got it wrong that we're hearing about him and his dodgy deals.
I have little doubt that if he'd *made* billions in profit he'd have simply been promoted and got a massive bonus!
"is anyone in the UK actually allowed to _own_ them? What with that draconian law banning violent pornography"
Ah, but you see it has to be "extreme" AND "for sexual arousal".
Of course how they are going to prove you were "sexually aroused" by these films unless they burst in on you whilst you're having a w@nk over them is another matter...
Still, at least there are Members of the House of Lords who are asking questions about the planned law to ban "extreme pornography" such as is "we in the Government know what it is when we see it" *really* a good enough definition for the Courts to use?!
A cynical thought...
I have to wonder whether this case is being pushed by the US Government because what they *really* want to do is to ensure that *everyone* can be forced to reveal encryption passwords etc, but they're doing it by picking the "soft target" of child porn on the grounds that most people do not apply logical thought where children are concerned.
Of course once they have the precedent that someone can be required to incriminate themselves in this way, they can then extend it to "terrorist suspects" and from there it's plain sailing down the line to allowing the RIAA to say "well we think he has encrypted MP3s on his hard drive..."
You miss the small point that if you cannot travel back in time to before Time Travel was invented, it just means that, at some time in the future, someone will say "hang on a minute, how did they invent Time Travel in 2009 when the technology wasn't available", jump back in time to see how it was done, then find that, of course, the technology wasn't available, so they have to invent it in order to make their trip possible in the first place...
We're going to consult, then ignore you anyway
Speaking as someone who started a petition which was signed by over one thousand, eight hundred people, then got a weaselly response from the Prime Minister's Office which basically completely ignored what the petition was saying, I have no doubt that this "consultation" is also going to be an utter waste of time and energy.
This Government has *NO* interest in listening to the people who elected them (let alone the large proportion of the electorate who *didn't* vote for them!) but systems like this work wonderfully for diverting people from writing to their MPs which may actually get some response!
"How can you...
"Persuade voters to believe that Labour is going to protect their personal data, look after their human rights, not waste their money on PFI schemes, run the country sensibly and efficiently etc when you know it can't?"
"What I tell them is nine-tenths bullshit and one-tenth selected facts."
Yep, he's perfect for the job.
Brings a whole new meaning to...
... "It's all gone quiet over there...!"
As thousands of message tones go off on one terrace whilst the other is busily responding to the clever guy who's just managed to post a scatalogical comment about the visiting team's goalkeeper's lack of ability to all of them!
What's the betting...
... this will turn into another Government "consultation" where the whole thing is rigged with biased information and spin control to try to force/ coerce/ baffle people into agreeing with the Government's side, whilst the opposition are marginalised and suppressed.
And even if people decide they *don't* agree with the Government, they'll find a way of spinning it so they can ignore the results!
We are a country that prides ourselves on liberty, in civil liberties...
... says Gordon Brown.
Oh really? This on exactly the same day that Parliament "debated" the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007.
This Bill contains, amongst other draconian legislation, the "Dangerous Pictures Act" that will have you locked up for three years simply for possessing pictures of "extreme pornography" which certain members of the Government find "abhorrent"!
Despite even Labour MPs opposing this measure and proposing amendments, it didn't even get mentioned because the Government disgracefully truncated the debate meaning that a Thought Crime is one step closer to entering UK law since it is the Government's position that we can't be trusted to look at this stuff in case it makes us do bad things.
See http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ for more details.
Mr Brown, your hypocrisy is utterly breathtaking!
It's to protect the children...
> "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."
If the Rudd-Labor Government thinks that people will be fooled by the "it's for the children" argument...
... they're probably right, after all, it works here too :-(
It would be cynical of me to suggest that this is just another attempt to soften people up for the idea of the National DNA Database.
They will, of course, guarantee that any DNA supplied to this study and any information gained from it won't become part of the National DNA Database...
... won't they?
So let's think a moment...
Firstly a lot of the people watching this are going to be Security Professionals who will be screaming at the TV "Jeez, man, talk about stating the bloody obvious" as someone finds a Post It with a password on the side of someone's monitors and the dramatic voice over says "You should never do this!"
Secondly most of the others are going to be Script Kiddies and wannabe HaX0rs who will be taking notes.
Of course the people who *REALLY* need to get a clue aren't going to be watching this anyway, because "well, it's computers, boring, innit?"
Oh, and where the preview says "These people are not criminals", I'd love to see them explain that the techniques they are using *aren't* criminal given what people have been arrested for...
Alternatively, instead of looking on Wikipedia, watch QI because they debunked the "Narrow Gate" and "Camels Rope" myths a few weeks ago.
A certain irony....
... In the quote from the Telegraph:
"You scumbag, you maggot you cheap lousy faggot, Happy Christmas your a*** I pray God It's our last."
So they're quite happy to print "faggot", but they won't print "arse"?!?!
And what about when...
... the crooks get hold of these (which, of course, they will) and wander past a victim 15' away then suddenly zap them.
Bingo, one victim nicely immobilised so the crook can rob/ rape/ whatever the poor sod who thought that because *they* had a taser in their bag they were safe.
> TomTom, for one, actually provide that in their latest devices, by way of MapShare. With regard to your point about the petrol station, that is down to your Sat Nav's points of interest database (not it's map), which on most Sat Nav's has been user updatable for a long time.
Thanks for this info, I've now gone looking for this and found it, but they don't exactly make it easy to locate!
Perhaps they should improve their navigation...!
... I'm going to be at the 2008 Discworld Con and the 2010 one and very probably the 2012 one as well as many more, and even if Pterry doesn't make any of them I'll still have a collection of inventive and original works of humour and gentle satire that make you realise that you just need to learn to be able to laugh at the world.
From "Affordable Graham" ;-)
What would be useful...
... is if companies like Tom Tom actually provided a method by which customers could inform them of errors or changes.
One example is a route local to me that tries to take you down a street that has been closed off to traffic, another is where I asked it to direct me to the nearest petrol station, only to find that it had closed down.
In both cases I can find no way of telling Tom Tom that their maps need updating.
Will it serve a drink that tastes "almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea"?
And will they have Genuine People Personalities?