...B4 U fail English.
163 posts • joined 10 Apr 2008
It's almost as though I can't blame the law/police/courts.
I know, thats a shocking point of view, but they are enmired in the same social dross as surrounds the rest of us. They are panicking over the idea of moral standards declining in society, when they have simply failed to realise that it is not morality that is under threat, but reason itself.
Our society is beginning to pride itself on its own stupidity; it's "Accept and Obey" culture'; it's disposable economy and sound-bite politics. It is ceasing to question, reason, critique and is being conditioned to conform, consume and commute instead.
If it was thinking instead; if it was using reason instead then it might just understand this concept:
"Law should protect people, not ideas."
Morality is an idea, pornography is an idea, social concordance itself is an idea, but they aren't people. No one is harmed by these ideas in and of themselves. These things are concepts, and in and of themselves, are harmless; it is only through the activity of people that these concepts are made manifest, and when these actions harm others we should indeed act through law to protect the victims, but when they remain only as ideas then I would submit that no harm is being done.
To pursue the prosecution of an idea, whether expressed by words, images, music, speech or any other media is to prosecute the freedom of thought itself. It is to create the Thought-Crime, to coin an ever cheapening catchphrase. Such activity is surely doomed to failure, as the consciousness cannot be effectively legislated any more than dreams might be. Ergo, the pursuit of such legislation is, in essence, itself directly harmful by its lack of productivity or the disquiet that brings to our otherwise peaceful lives.
So yes, by all means pursue the traffickers, the child pornographers, those who cause suffering to animals, the purveyors of violence and fear, but leave those who hold ideas purely as images alone.
If you cannot leave us to think and dream as we wish, then I know where the shadow of law should really be falling, for it becomes clear where the measure of harm actually arises.
"We are oft to blame in this, - / 'Tis too much proved - that with devotion's visage/ And pious action we do sugar o'er/ The devil himself." - Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1
"I have not come for what you hoped to do. I've come for what you did." ~ V for Vendetta
I'll very, very tenatively welcome this move. It's not a fascistic high-level approach to censorship by some faceless government group making decisions on our behalf.
First of all, sites are reported by whomever wants to report one, rather than by an intelligence agency or select committe. That means, in general, that the morality of censorship arises from a broader base of opinion, rather than from a narrow out-of-touch group.
Secondly, whilst I am very wary of anything ACPO is involved in, it at least appears there is a legal or judicial review of such sites before they are added to a 'ban' list, rather than the more absolutist models we've seen bandied about previously.
Given that the general zeitgeist indicates that we should have some kind of model for monitoring unwanted activity on the web, I think this is a relatively reasonable approach. At least on the surface of things.
Mind you, I too would love to know HOW they are going to block websites with the cooperation of every ISP in the country?
I don't think she'd need many accessories really, after all she'd be promoted to PM pretty damned quick and just have to tell us engineers what we should be doing on a daily basis instead.
I think she needs a diploma from some crappy management school, a copy of the contractual SLA's and budgetary control. Possibly a copy of "PCs for Dummies" so she can understand all the technical language that real engineers sling around?
Oh yeah, perhaps some carpet burns from the promotional process too.
1980 - "Smog" - Redundant
1988 - "Greenhouse Effect" - Redundant
1993 - "CFCs" - Redundant
1994 - "Hole in the Ozone layer" - Redundant
1998 - "Global Warming" - Redundant
2008 - "Climate Change" - Current
2011 - TBA
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." - G. Orwell
"It all distracts attention from the question the government doesn't want you to ask: what makes so many people want to blow you to bits?"
No, thats not the simple question either. The real question, I believe, is this:
"What makes the government want you to believe so many people want to blow you to bits?"
Given how relatively few people have died to terrorist attacks in the UK over the last 10 years, to ask why so many people want to blow you to bits is about as sensible as asking "Why do all car drivers want to kill everyone?!". After all a LOT more people died in RTA's than in terrorist attacks over the same period.
Mind you, more people died in accidents involving their toilets or as a result of bee stings (despite all the stories about bees being in decline) too.
Perhaps, when we're done banning cars, we should ban toilets and bees too?
Terrorism is about government propaganda and media fear-mongering, all in the name of the Great God Profit. After the 7/7 copycat bombings our government and our media both trumpted the clarion call of "Carry on as usual, or the terrorists win". What happened to THAT idea? No, instead we see constant curtailing of liberties, the removal of freedoms, an increase in intrusive monitoring and surveillance....
It's all lies. There are no terrorist organisations waging war on us. There is no Al Qaeda.
(Caveat: There ARE terrorists; sad sack copycats and wannabes inspired by the same propaganda and media lies into believing they are acting on behalf of a global wave of rebellion. Non existant rebellion.)
Erm... you need to think that over for a moment. Europe is swiftly becoming our last great hope for freedom and civil rights in the UK. As anti-federalist as we might want to be, we can't deny that without the ECHR and other EU organisations (yes, I know the ECHR *isn't* the EU or EEC) we'd be completely stuffed.
Look at the ECHR response to ID Cards, Phorm or s44 to see what I mean.
I'm rapidly becoming pro-European because they seem to be more concerned about our rights than our government is!
Thats one more tick for the Yellow Party.
I have to say that I've been a facebook user for quite some time now. It's been an excellent way for me to contact old friends who've been out of touch with me for years for a wide variety of reasons, and also serves as a great repository for pictures and I do enjoy the comments my friends tag onto them. Granted, there IS a lot of dross on facebook and initially I did get spammed with all sorts of requests for particpation in games, groups or so-called sources, so for all you haters (who've never actually tried facebook, I note) here are some top tips:
* If you don't think someone is really a friend, don't add them.
* if you don't like app invites, block the app.
* if you don't want to play a game, join a group or a cause, then don't.
* if you hate pictures of yourselves, don't post them.
* if you don't like the comments that someone makes on your page, block the person.
It's really no rocket science and I must say I am dissapointed by this rejection of emerging software technology by people who read the progressive technology press!
Oh, and Twitter sucks!
...around the set for the "IT Crowd" and then a real IT environment in a modern business before asking which they would rather work in.....
I've been in IT for over 20 years and I've *NEVER* seen a working environment as the one described by this student psychologist. They are the staple of sterotypical thinking, and that folks, is as bad as saying "All women are bad drivers". It is no more true than "All techies are saddos/geeks/anaraks..." etc. etc.
Various organisations, including those dedicated to so-called feminism have been battling for years to shed such lables, so I find it somewhat suprising when someone else comes along, and in the name of equality, tries to re-establish the same pigeon-hole categories.
All these measures. All these safeguards. DNA Databases, RIPA, gIMP, ID Cards; all to stop terrorists and the ONLY person arrested under these systems is a schizophrenic traveller with an interest in model rockets?!
Surely, you're kidding?!
Or is the truth that there ARE. NO. TERRORISTS?
These are the instruments of control being put into place and then into operation. Oppose. Refuse. Resist.
It's enough to make me want to write a blog, I tell you!
IANAL, true, but I know a little baout contractual law, and clicking "I Agree" on a e-EULA does *not* amount to a 'contractual agreement'. Instead, it operates as a disclaimer, inasmuch as it acts as evidence that you have read and understood the EULA, not that you have contractually agreed to it, even if the button says "I agree" rather than "I understand the terms and conditions".
The key element missing from this transaction that would convert the EULA to a contract is the signature of BOTH parties. After all, *anyone* could've clicked that button....
Also, the power of a EULA is limited in a large number of countries. In the UK it falls into a very grey area that is still disputed in contractual law, and in Germany it hold no weight at all because it could only be read *AFTER* the purchase was made, making it an 'unfair imposition of terms'.
It may well be that Microsoft is on good ground in the US, but I think a class action coming out of Europe might give them cause for concern if they rely on the argument that the end user breached the EULA.
On the other hand, opening a box and tinkering with it certainly breaks the Warranty and the manufacturer is no longer obliged to provide technical services, including support, and that may provide for the withdrawal of software services as well (Such already happens if you crack open a digitial TV decoder ~ your service can be withdrawn if you're detected.) and, I believe, that ANY service can be withdrawn by the provider under any circumstances they wish without need to give notification or reason ("The management reserves the right to refuse entry").
I think it's going to be an interesting debate....
"I'm not sure what is more surprising...
That anyone believed that Play would honour their guarantee, or that anyone in their right mind would pay £45 for a derivative of a Doom type game...."
Why yes! Why didn't I see that before! I mean surely buying new software for any reason is just stupid? I mean, who in their right mind would pay over £150 for a copy of MSOffice which is just a derivative of Wordstar?! Or how about buying Windows 7 when thats just a derivative of Windows ME? How stupid we all are! Now, please go away you well named backwards horse.
To all of you "Get a life" preachers - Please just be quiet. I have NO intention of taking up any of following mindless activities - Jogging (Trainers cost more than PC Games), going to the pub (costs more EACH time than a PC game), Watching/Participating in sport (Turns you into a neanderthal as far as I can tell and will certainly cost you more to participate in than PC games). You are not holier than anyone, and you are not special or morally superior because you can whack a ball with a club or sink 20 pints in a single evening. Now, please just jog on and leave us to enjoy OUR chosen, harmless pastime.
To the critics of the game - have you actually PLAYED it? No? Well, I'm suprised. Not. I will freely admit it's not the most flexible FPS gameplay of all time, but I did enjoy it's pace and variations in setting, particularly enjoyed the Ice Climb/Snowbike sequence. My biggest criticism is that it was over within a day or so of playing.
kthxbai. (goes back to pwning all your bases).
...cogency and coherency are two of the properties required in order for such a standpoint to be 'recognised' as pertinent and defensible?
Erm... I think that just about ALL religions would fail those tests. If not, then those in charge of making such distinctions are either religious themselves and thus biased, or are simply not looking close enough.
The threat of terrorism is so great at the new Olympic Stadium; we fear the actions of the international jihadists, the Taleban, the (imaginary) forces of Al Qaeda!
So, do we ramp up MI5/MI6? Call in New Scotland Yard? Put the army on the streets? Increase police cover?
No! We send for the HSE and make it a Health & Safety concern. Yeah! HSE vs (imaginary) Al Qaeda! We are sure to win that conflict! Why didn't we do that before?! Lets send them out to Afghanistan right away too!
And on another note "Biometric access controls are utilised for health and safety reasons" just sound a little like the 'controlled access points' in Halflife 2 - Where are you Gordon Freeman? Perhaps we can name the first one in East London as 'checkpoint charlie', just for fun....
...but Ralph Lauren isn't selling to us, are they? In fact, I doubt those images even appear in magazines that most men are likely to even glance at, let alone pick up and buy.
Gents, we have to take care not to fall into the idea that fashion, makeup, sexy underwear, perfume or anything of that ilk is designed in order to make women sexier for men's pleasure, or even to attract men; It isn't, apparently. As a notable psychologist/feminist recently explained to me it's about 'bragging rights' between women themselves. It's the same game of brinksmanship that men play with their cars, their golf handicap, or how many pints they can drink. It's all about having a stronger 'male' image.
A shorter skirt isn't a woman dressing 'provocatively' to attract a 'partner'; it's about establishing their 'self image as a woman'.
Now, I coughed a lot when this was explained to me, but I will leave you all to make up your own minds. I think, however, that I'm safe in saying that Ralph Lauren doesn't give two hoots what the average heterosexual male thinks, however, and isn't going to change plans simply because we all like more curvy lasses!
Marxism != Communism. That's a classic mistake in western thinking! Karl Marx himself was a critic of communism and certainly not a fan of the idea. He even praised capitalism as the best method for achieving a socialist society, for without the infrastructure of capitalism we cannot afford to be socialist in our thinking.
Communism, on the other hand, tries to achieve "social equality" without the infrastructure capitalism provides and ultimately is doomed to failure at a socio-economic level, and when your economy and social order begins to collapse you are left with no choice but to use draconian laws and, ultimately, force to retain your 'control' over society.
We are a rich nation (the west in general is) and that gives us the luxury of financial freedom to be altruistic and progressive in our political and social thinking. When you're scrabbling for your next meal or to survive another day such high ideals are beyond your ability to afford and are certainly of a low priority. I believe that captialism is the right vehicle for socialist thinking and that socialism is the next logical step in the evolution of government. I condemn communisn as a failed form of government, but the 'corporate republic' that unregulated capitalism drags us towards is unlikely to be much better.
"The measure of wealth is not how much one has stored up, but how one uses that wealth to better the lives of others and yourself." ~ Voltaire.
"To each according to their needs. From each according to their ability." ~ Karl Marx
Unless it was *their* money they were counting then the participants were not 'made to feel richer' because they were simply counting someone else's money.
Also, where's the control? Where's the group who didn't count anything at all?
We may as well draw the conclusion that touching patterned paper makes you happier and more tolerant of hot water than touching blank paper does.
Utter rubbish, surely?
"It's stuff like this that convinces me just how insignificant we are - never mind the chances of like out there - how about the chances of a lack of life out there?! Wowee."
Insignificant? I respectfully disagree. Surely the significance here is that we are here to observe these things? We are the *only* observers we know of for certain (granted, its a sample of one and hardly statistical), but to cast aside the fact of our existence and ability to observe existence as 'insignificant' is to understate on a grand scale.
The universe is billions of years old; the light you are seeing is equally ancient. Time & Space are the same thing, and here we stand, in our 28000 year long 'blink of an eye'. We are able to observe, record, study and communicate our perceptions of creation.
We are no less significant, I would submit, than the stars themselves. Without our observation, surely, the wonder of the universe would diminish into insignificance, much as the tree falling in the forest ~ It has no significance that it does, or does not make a sound, if there is no one there to hear it.
Aliens ~ Because they may, or may not, be there to observe as well, and indeed we may be them.
"Actually, I'm going to see if I can train the seaguls* we have here in Torquay, I mean they're not really much use anyway, so if I can train them to send out MicroSD cards to friends with stuff on (I'm thinking copies of Ubuntu) then all the better."
Yeah, but you'd never be sure that your data would reach the specific target you want for delivery. After all, you just have a massive cloud full of seafulls each with a specific piece of data attached. Hard to sort one from another.
What you need, really, is for each seagull to just carry a small piece of each file, and then paint them with tracker IDs so you can reassemble the files from each seagull. I reckon this kind of DSC (Distributed Seagull Cloud) is probably just the ticket for your linux distros.
You could even encrypt the packets by disguising the gulls as sparrows.....
..ok, I'll stop drinking coffee now.
"...I would imagine that the case against bestiality porn is that animals, like children, are considered unable to give consent, thus the DVDs feature depictions of real unconsensual sex...."
Wait. Hold up.
Are you suggesting that the same right to withdraw or withhold consent that human (children or otherwise) hold should be extended to animals? Isn't that the ridiculous line touted by PETA; "Animals are people too"?
Well, they're not. We slaughter animals for our own use on a collosal scale on a daily basis, we use them in entertainment, we keep them (sometimes) in dreadfully poor conditions. We don't seek consent for any of THOSE activities, why should we seek it for anything else that we want to do with them?
Why the moral line drawn abitrarily here, and not on the subject of KILLING the animal? If I made a video wherein I shot a rabid dog, would I be subject to prosecution? What if it were a healthy dog? What about a kitten?
Or, how about it was a white shark that was known to have eaten someone?
Where on earth are people drawing this line? The Ebola virus has the right to live, unmolested?
(granted, making a video of someone sexually abusing a virus, or shooting it would be particularly difficult, but would it be amoral?)
Allow me to digress for a moment, if you will, because there is something annoying me about the reasons given for our presence in Afghanistan, both by this article and more generally by the western media.
I don't believe there is an organisation called "Al Qaeda", nor do I think there ever really has been. Osama Bin Laden has never used that phrase, and all terrorist actions attributed to such an organisation have been claimed as the actions of other parties, with the notable exception of the 9/11 attacks which have never been claimed by any terrorist organisation.
Al Qaeda, in Arabic (the Saudi dialect specifically) means "The Base" and is often used in the context of "Database" or "Storage". It has it origins in the codename given to a secret mujahadeen training centre that was supported and possibly operated by the CIA during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980's ~ that's right, the CIA created the term.
In the 1990's the phrase was used as a codename for the CIA's database of 'international terrorists' and even now you will still see Al Qaeda mentioned alongside the idea of it being "A loose coalition of terrorists organisations." I would submit that the 'coalition' amounts to little more than 'groups on our CIA database'.
If you examine the reports of terrorist actions throughout the world that have been attributed with "links to Al Qaeda" you will find that they are either A) claimed by another known organisation, B) appear to be unclaimed or C) are the actions of a 'copycat' group. Not one of them can be directly attributed to either Osama Bin Laden or to anything calling itself "Al Qaeda".
The mere idea that we went into Afghanistan to squash the Taliban and thus remove Al Qaeda from existence is utter farce. We went there as part of the same plan as the invasion of Iraq; to secure territory for the worlds biggest oil pipeline, lessening our reliance on both Russian and Middle Easten fuel supplies in the face of the theorhetical "Peak Oil Crisis".
9/11 was a catalyst; a cassus belli, and little more. It has been leveraged near perfectly, so much that we nearly all bought into the propaganda, and now the 1984-esque spectre of "Links to Al Qaeda" is used regularly to justify continuing overseas action, reduction of civil liberties, increase in military spending and increases in surveillance and intrusion into our every day lies.
You might be rolling your eyes and muttering "Oh god, another conspiracy theorist", but what do we have to lose by questioning what we're told? "My country right or wrong" type of obedience; an unquestioning loyalty, has led in the past to countless abuses. It is our right, and our duty, to question, and ultimately we have to be satisfied with the answers before war is waged in our name, and I hope that I'm wrong ultimately.
Here's some additional reading that I threw together quickly in support of my thinking. First, on the history of "Al Qaeda"...
And secondly, the oil pipeline planned in Afghanistan (contracts awarded to Bush family/supporters!)
(Addedum: I've just noticed that the pipeline is intended to pass through Pakistan. Now, where are we hearing about Al Qaeda today....?)
Lyrics, in the absence of music, is usually referred to as Poetry.
These ****tards are, in effect, removing poetry from the internet on the basis of their 'ownership' of the material. Note well, that these people are not the artists, the poets, who wrote the works, but the twunts who've managed to 'buy the rights' and are now seeking to maximise THEIR profits.
Who owns the right to Shakespeare? Blake? DeFoe? Are we going to see all instances of their work removed from the public view as well? Where will these morons stop?
For myself, I intend to listen to a few albums that I legitimately own, scrawl down the lyrics as I hear them (IE, probably not correctly) and then post them to my social networking pages, along with crosslinking to Amazon etc. where the album can be purchased. I'd like to see them even try to sort that mess out, even if they can prove that the lyrics I've written down 'belong' to them.
Exactly how inaccurate do the lyrics need to be before I am *NOT* impinging on their so-called 'rights'?
Isn't there a distinction to be found beyond Left/Right politics and Fascism/Liberalism?
After all, aren't there such political concepts as Liberal Right or Fascist Left? I think some of the debate here has been bogged down in a very simplistic view of Left=Liberal and Right=Fascist.
I've been involved in a fair few protests, right here in the UK, and campaign for equality and civil rights in many ways. Granted I don't travel abroad much, and I do have a love of the Reg indeed, so your points are well taken; Perhaps its time I took more broad ranging stances.
I still don't think that inflicting a beating upon someone is acceptable or excusable, however, and even as I withdraw from this debate (as I clearly have some things to consider now!) I can promise you I won't stop campaigning for an end to such things as unjust laws, brutal physical punishment and religious dogmatism whether its here or abroad.
Mines the one with a WHOLE pile of questions in the pocket. Thanks guys!
*bow* quite right, and well played...
...but I am left with the issue that someone somewhere is suffering because of the vicarious whims of another. How then can I justify my inaction? Because it's not happening to me or mine? Because it's on the other side of the planet? How close to home does it have to be before we take action? It's this desire for a peaceful life at all costs that is leading is to sleepwalk into barbarism, isn't it?
Surely, to accept that we cannot interfere with the morality of another nation, and thus by extension, the morality of any individual, we become paralysed in the face of those who DO committ such acts, such as these so-called 'religious authorities' who will carry out this terrible act?
Sometimes it has to be right to attack them... ...doesn't it?
I think you misunderstand me. I have no objection to the people, state or culture of Malaysia. I do however object to bullies with sticks beating women. I call that behaviour primitive.
For those of you who seem to think that knowing the punishment for a certain behaviour is tantamount to having no right to object when you commit the 'crime' I suggest you look at some of the research into the psychology of those who abuse their children; often they set abitrary rules with extreme consequences as punishments; "If you touch anything blue today, I will beat you."
This punishment, delivered by a bully is an example of institutionalised abuse codifed and excused by religion, and that, will always be the behaviour of a primitive mind.
And, by the way, I never read the Daily Mail.
We have no right to interfere? Really?
Perhaps we should've let Hitler exterminate the jews then? Or allow millions to starve in Africa? Or do business with the scum-princes of Saudi (oh. wait. we do) or accept that 'extraodinary rendition' is acceptable? Or child abuse is the business of the parent and not of the state?
We have no right!? Nonsense! On the contrary I say we have a DUTY to interfere! Where suffering is inflicted upon the weak, we MUST take action. Put your mothers, wives and daughters in the place of this poor woman and then see if it's still funny, tittilating or irrelevant to your own lives.
That evil may triumph only requires that good men do nothing.
I hand a FAIL tag out to everyone who reduces these issues to acinine comments, comedy or self-centered utilitarian philosophy. Next time, think before you spout NIMBY/Daily Fail nonsense.
ANPR & Speed cameras are about one thing only... profit.
The revenue generated by fines levied on the 'evidence' of cameras constitutes a significant amount of police funding, alongside the ever-rising slice of your community charge that goes to our 'underfunded' police force (the same force that is so busy ignoring the law and your civil rights on a day to day basis).
They say it themselves; If the cameras were obvious people would avoid them and we'd not be able to detect crime (never mind that video evidence is very rarely admissable in court!)
Nonsense! You hide them to ensure you CATCH criminals whereas surely the function of law is to DETER criminality?
Stop hiding the damned cameras!
Come on now folks, how hard have we been yelling for a new business model regarding the sale of digital rights?! Sure, this might not be the best plan in the world, but at least they're attempting to create new models for us consumers..
...give them a break, it *might* just work (million to one shot and all that jazz).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019