5066 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
- ← Prev
- Next →
@Psyx - Re: I no longer know...
No, it's not cricket, it's irony.
I no longer know...
... whether the British Government is copying the Chinese Government or vice versa...
As the old line has it...
... Got any naked pictures of your girlfriend? No?
Want to buy some...?
Looking for Planet X?
They need to ask...
DUCK DODGERS in the 24th and a half CENTURY!
Re: About bloody time...
Sounds like Salvage 1...
Re: INFRARED IMAGE USING HD SHOW A PACKAGE BEING DELIVERED
Being delivered by Universe Parcel Services...?
Should we expect a "Sorry you were out when we tried to deliver your item" message soon?
"they couldn’t access a designated online portal"
You mean someone lost the Post-It where they wrote the password down...?
" at £300 SIM-free, the Moto X is still £170 cheaper"
And at £130, the Moto-G is £170 cheaper than the X, especially if you get an Ovivo Sim for £20 and get 300 minutes, 300 texts and 500MB *every month* for nada!
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
"paedophiles, extremists and terrorists... oh my!"
These are the people who gave us the Dangerous Pictures Act. Who wanted the National DNA Database. Who wanted us all to have ID cards. Who introduced the RIP Act which was supposed to protect us against terrorists, not to spy on people who might be sending their kids to the wrong school, etc etc etc.
And NOW they expect us to TRUST THEM?
@Grease Monkey - Re: Innocent?
I think it is you who does not understand:
> If you did not put the images on your server and were not aware that they were there could the prosecution prove that you "possessed" the images?
Quoting from the Criminal Justice Act 1988:
* * * * *
160 Possession of indecent photograph of child
(1) Subject to section 160A it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in his possession.
(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or
(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent
* * * * *
Note where it says "It is a defence for him to prove" ie a person is *assumed* to be guilty *unless* they can prove that they didn't know the images were there and they hadn't seen them!
For sale - Great Britain PLC
Bids and offers of Directorships to the Tory Party HQ...
@Oninoshiko Re: Translation:
> thought child pornography was always a crime to posses, no matter how you received it
Sexual Offences Act 2003:
* * * * *
46 Criminal proceedings, investigations etc.
(1)After section 1A of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) insert—
“1BException for criminal proceedings, investigations etc.
(1)In proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence if he proves that—
(a)it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,
(b)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of the Security Service, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service, or
(c)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.
* * * * *
Of course the "necessity" here is the prevention of terrerism...
... Cyber Crime *IS* Terrerism!!!
Who cares about the clever technology...?
... Kudos for the Monty Python references guys!!!
"If 90 per cent opt out [of care.data], we won't have an NHS."
Then how the *FUCK* did we manage to have one for the last half-century??
... this isn't just something else the Tories have flogged off to their mates...?
I agree, but be careful...
... Yes, there are scam sites out there who will try to rip people off by charging a fee for simply forwarding on data, but the flip side is, for instance, the business that a friend of mine runs.
She sorts out US Visa applications which is something you can do yourself, but she does it for well known celebrities, pop bands and so on and it's quicker and simpler for them to pay her to do the work rather than spend time trying to sort out a dozen or twenty Visas by themselves. This also means that, sometimes, she has to travel to London to get to the US Embassy when it opens in the morning to sort out a problem for someone whose plane is leaving later that day.
So, yes, we need to do something about the scammers, but not at the cost of catching legitimate businesses in an overly big net.
Looks like a fish...
... moves like a fish...
... steers like a cow!
Perhaps it should be renamed...
Or is Lewis getting more desperate to prove his view of the argument...?
Unlike Presley, Jobs has not been sighted in obscure truck stops around the nation.
But will you be able to go to Las Vegas and get a Steve Jobs lookalike to perform your wedding ceremony...?
Nancy from the air...
... and there was me thinking he was spying on his neighbour who was sunbathing...
Come and have a go...
... if you think you're hard enough. You have ten seconds to comply...
A Killer App Opportunity...
So now what we need is for someone to write an App that will act as an over-arching sandbox for all the others to run in such that *WE* get to decide what (if any) data leaves it!
I'd certainly be willing to pay for that.
"100GB of free storage...
"...although the extra gigabytes are only good for twelve months, after which customers must either start paying for them or lose them."
Well isn't *that* generous of them! Start to use those "free" 100GB and then you have to decide whether to fork out money or lose/ delete whatever you were storing in them.
And the pushers always offer a "free" sample too...
"It doesn’t recognise people...
"...so it can’t say “Hello Chief Anderton”, nor does it remember people with a view to selling you whatever you bought last time"
Pour encourager les autres...
Lol! That's a good one, tell us another...!
... so now not only will we get pictures of people's dinner on Failbook, they'll be hashtagging their mashtags too!
See this website for details of what's happening and how to opt out...
I've also written to my MP asking him and his colleagues to get this whole nonsense put on hold until we get a proper say in what happens to our private data!
I thought for a moment that said "Slood" and was a nod to Terry Pratchett ;-)
@jake - Re: Can anybody point me at ANYTHING that is not GMO?
Gene splicing from unrelated species != Cross breeding different varieties of the same species.
Re: Southsea Arcade
Damn, you and I must have been wasting (erm, spending) money on the game around the same time because I was one of those people standing around in Clarence Pier waiting for my turn!
I was never as good, though, as my friend Raf (tall, dark curly hair) who would casually sit there, can of Quattro in one hand, joystick in the other, blasting his way through the entire game :-/
"It’s hard to comprehend...
"...why so much love is still felt for this half-baked (by today’s standards) shooter."
Because it was *FUN*!!!
A game that ran at an almost insane speed, which required lots of concentration, a chair you sat in that *moved*, great (for their time) graphics, what is there not to love?!
“Welcome to the Fantasy Zone, get ready!”
... is this going to stop people picking their house as their "special location" which is going to be as secure as using their birthday?
... my data!
All that is needed is for it to be able to say "here I am" to any other such equipped cars in the vicitinity. Anything else is going beyond its remit into the realms of monitoring and spying on me and where I go, just as the last Labour government wanted to put ANPR cameras at every major junction.
It doesn't matter whether you're the government or the motor manufacturer, you do *NOT* have the right to demand that information from me.
Re: @M Gale - Unfair Tax?
@M Gale - You can call it whatever you like, it's still not "a tax that pays for the roads", but you can keep (and will) wriggling as much as you like too as the rest of your post demonstrates.
Re: @Graham Dawson - Leave it out
"Avoidance is not paying taxes that you aren't required to pay. What's unethical or immoral about that?"
Ask Vodaphone or Amazon or Google or Starbucks.
Blatantly manipulating the system may be legal and profitable, but it hardly qualifies as ethical.
@Neil Barnes - Re: TV a necessity?
People went to the music hall and then the movies and watched News Reels.
Re: @M Gale - Unfair Tax?
M Gale - *NOBODY* pays "Road Tax" and haven't done since just after WWII, you are taxed on your ownership of a motor vehicle but you don't get a discount because "I don't use that sort of road, therefore I won't pay for it."
I'll spell out what this has to with the Goggle box: It's just like someone saying "I don't watch the BBC therefore I shouldn't have to pay for it." Is that clear now?
(Oh and BTW, if you ride a motorbike, which does not contribute to congestion and causes less damage to a road than a small car, you *still* have to pay VED, even though its capacity is less than those cars which are exempted from VED.)
@M Gale - Re: Unfair Tax?
> Oh lovely. I don't want the BBC. Can I watch Channel 4? ITV? Sky? Anything?
> Guess not, then.
Right, so if I only ride a bicycle, can I withold the part of my taxes which go to pay for motorways because I don't use them?
And who would produce...
... documentaries like Michael Moseley comes up with? Pain, Pus and Poison? Eww! Nobody wants to watch that!
Or what about Danny Baker's Rockin' Decades? A bunch of people sat around a table nattering about music? Too boring (the fact that the guy has forgotten more about music than most people know seems to be irrelevant).
And The Sky at Night would get the axe because it has no mass-market appeal.
I'll leave the last word(s) to Mitch Benn... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM
Re: fund it from general taxation
Great, and leave it it *WIDE OPEN* to government meddling and BS austerity because it's not "paying its way" and "we're all in this together"...
@Graham Dawson - Re: Leave it out
"avoidance (entirely legal)"
But not necessarily entirely ethical...
... sorry, wrong punchline.
Re: The other shoe drops...
As I said in the last El Reg article on this: The system is fine as long as *we*, the public have control over the "brick code" and decide when it's used.
If the State gets their hands on it, however...
Pots and kettles...
... come to mind, bitch!
Re: @Fibbles - WTF is "tiles"?
"this means that some of my most visited sites are buried 3 levels deep in the bookmarks menu"
Erm, are you aware that the Firefox Bookmarks tab has a "Most Visited" section...?
- ← Prev
- Next →
- Crawling from the Wreckage Want a more fuel efficient car? Then redesign it – here's how
- Human spaceships dodge ALIEN BODY skimming Mars
- Review Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
- Downrange Are you a gun owner? Let us in OR ELSE, say Blighty's top cops
- Origins of SEXUAL INTERCOURSE fished out of SCOTTISH LAKE