As opposed to half-baked security...?
5465 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
As opposed to half-baked security...?
... So much for "voluntary", then...
Well, they'd have been even less impressed if you'd forced it to run through the buffers and onto the concourse...!
This is not the location you're...
... oh bugger, what a give away!
Amongst other things I'm a Moderator on the Gamehouse Discussion forums for their version of Scrabble etc and a couple of our users have found a work-around to allow access to Gamehouse games on Facebook for users in New Zealand.
NB this is not an official Gamehouse fix, caveat user! :-)
... and taken it under State control...
Strict liability means that mens rea ("guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to the actus reus ("guilty act") in order for a conviction to be obtained.
In other words the defendant has to prove that the image is *not* "grossly offensive" or "liable to cause serious injury" etc, which is virtually impossible.
Let's hear it for Tick-Box Justice...
No, thanks to Regina vs Church 1996 after the Club Whiplash raid where the CPS tried to get a conviction for "running a disorderly house". The Judge asked the Jury "Do you think this sort of behaviour is acceptable in this day and age" and the Jury said "Yes".
The only problem is that the Operation Spanner case R vs Laskey, Jaggard, Brown et al, says that if you leave marks which are "more than trifling or transient" then you are committing an offence...
Confused? You will be...
The Government are now warning that Iran may be able to launch rockets containing plague carrying rats and have raised the National Security Level to "frantic".
... or, at least, it would get rid of some of the redundant Admirals, Generals and so on...
At last someone who gets the point that just because Hollywood squinnies does NOT mean they get their own way simply because they can afford lots of expensive lawyers.
Of course we now have to hope that the Government will actually *listen* to the advice they're given instead of ignoring it and blithely continuing to trample all over every liberty we have...
So why the F**K didn't you consider that before introducing this silly scheme with great big security holes in it??
Where can we get this...!
All you need is a "blocking" ship to put itself in the way of the robo-ship and whilst it's trying to dodge past that, the sub slips silently away...
... "Head of Stasi"?!
What do you think...?!
# Section 28 - National security. Any processing for the purpose of safeguarding national security are exempt from all the data protection principles, as well as Part II (subject access rights), Part III (notification), Part V (enforcement), and Section 55 (Unlawful obtaining of personal data).
# Section 29 - Crime and taxation. Data processed for the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the assessment or collection of taxes are exempt from the first data protection principle.
"You can think about making a credit card-sized device that you can put in a [...] door, and break it open with very little voltage," according to Steen.
Great for when you've forgotten your keys...
"...Betray Your Family & Friends. Fabulous Prizes to be Won!"
... have all the employees of your Anti-Virus company download the updates first? There should be sufficient computers of various configurations and installations amongst them to pick up most of the duff update problems.
And it would give your workers a much greater incentive to ensure that these sort of glitches don't happen in the first place!
Mine's the one with "I am a british businessman working with senstive commercial secrets" on the back...
... for driving a coach and horses through some basic principles of English Law feels equally unmade."
The case was, of course, *never* made in the first place, just a "precautionary principle" argument that "well, this material might cause problems and we don't like it, so let's ban it".
Meanwhile, however, we still have a book-burning law which says "if you've got anything that might fall under this law, you'd better delete it youself, just in case we nick you for something else and we use it as an easier way to get a conviction".
As for our worst fears not being realised, you miss out the important word "Yet". It took some while for Councils etc to realise the power that the RIPA gave them, but when they did figure it out, abuse of these powers rapidly became widespread.
2 + 2 = 4
Guardian calling Colossus...
2 + 2 = 4
(Who else remembers The Forbin Project...?)
So that's 9,000 deaths in the UK alone.
Remind me again why we're so afraid of terrorism...?
... must be kicking themselves for missing out all these past several years...!
Hey, don't be so nasty...
... to the chimpanzees!
... 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!"
... a group of male researchers claimed that the existence of the clitoris was a myth because they couldn't find it...
Excuse me, miss, but I noticed your laptop battery is running a bit low, may I lend you a hand or two...?
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"?
Dear Terry H, try doing a little basic research before digging up another long-discredited Zombie Argument:
... was brought to you by Fox News.
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...
Yeah, but I skipped to the end and found that the Zebra did it...
... I'd set them an assignment on the Thomas Bowdler:
(Followed by one on the First Amendment...!)
... 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.
But don't you *want* a third glorious decade of total law enforcement...?!
... 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..."
... 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...
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...
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.
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?
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...