Posts by Steve Swann 163 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Apr 2008
I have to say, up to now I've not had an issue with my 20mb Virgin pipe. I *do* see a drop-off during the 'peak hours' as advertised, and I am a pretty heavy download user so that's fair comment as far as I'm concerned; I'm happy to share with everyone else..
..but I think this article and the comments that follow has prompted me to perform some tests. I'll edit later with an update.
"Palin would make just as good a President, if not better than Obama, Biden or McCain .. she might not be *up* on everything yet, but she's a bright lady and not the high grade repetitive liar that just about everyone one in Washington DC is (other than Ron Paul)..."
A bright lady? She believe in creationism for pitys sake! That is not the belief of a 'bright lady' - it's the belief of a backwards, primitive mind!
and... she thinks guns are for fun!
Saints and ministers of grace preserve us from such thinking! (/END Irony)
We should petition YouTube, in its own interests, to remove ALL material of a 'religious nature' from its servers? That way they could be sure not to offend anyone at all.
And us Atheists will be happy that religious dogma, lies and propaganda has one less outlet to use and one less forum to scream at each other upon.
Roll on the age of Secularism!
- A tombstone because god is dead.
Ah, bless their cotton socks!
As several of my fellow posters have already noted, the government are clearly lacking the degree of control they want over our information sources.
Once upon a time they had a thing called the BBC, which (all this delivered in the voice of Mr. Chumley-Warner, by the way) provided everything that the noble people of this great nation needed to know. Here, the government had a media mouthpiece that provided single-source information and all was well in the world. Before that, they had the bible and *that* contained the 'manipulated truth' required to stablise a social order. You can still see that archaic practice in operation in many nations elsewhere in the world.
Now we have this marvelous invention called the Internet, and with the clear evolution into web 2.0 applications we have large-scale, open-source communication (such as we see here, on this forum) and frankly it scares the government witless.
Good, I say, let them be afraid. We can share information, opinion and intelligence on a scale far greater than they can and at greater speed than they can imagine. They are right to be afraid of it. Maybe it will be the catalyst to bring them back to the transparency and honesty that they *should* practice, rather than merely paying lip-service to it.
They cannot control the Internet. We won't let them.
Mines the one with the B.L.A. armband - consider me recruited!
Before I get into my main point, let me point something out to all those of you who are spouting the "Oh, that film is off then" or "So much for the BBC series XXX" - the law - Which I have just read through after following the link in the main article, specifically allows for 'such images in the course of a narrative', which means if you are telling a story that involves such a scene, then its fine because it isn't simply for 'sexual gratification' - Phew! Channels 4&5 are saved then!
Now... my main point....
Since when did the government think it has the power to legislate our MORALITY??! They'll be telling us what clothes to wear, how to address people, what times we are allowed to enjoy ourselves and how much... oh, hold on they already are! (Formal business wear, correct forms of address for the 'upper class' & drinking laws)
Frankly, this is unacceptable and we *must* resist such legislation! Orwell spoke of 'thought crimes' and here they are - owning such an image means you are getting your kicks from it and therefore must be a pervert and therefore you are unacceptable to society - Off to prison with you for a good, hard neutering!
Enough, I say! Refuse! Resist!
Black helicopters, because they are coming for me....
A proposed solution, involving a small change to UK copyright laws.... (as a copyright holder, I think my proposal is fair.)
If a consumer, or business, purchases copyrighted material then they purchase the right to distribute that material, providing that said distribution does not bring any fiscal/financial profit directly to that consumer.
So, if I buy a CD and play it at a house party for my friends, or at work for colleagues, I have broken no law, but if I hold a ticket-only rave and charge for people to attend, then I owe the artists who made the material a slice of the profit.
Surely this is what PRS is actually trying to achieve? It's not fair to make a profit from someone elses labour without sharing that profit with them (Corporations, take note!), but it is equally unfair to charge someone for listening/sharing music they've already paid for!
The rules regarding the copying and illegal distribution of material should remain unchanged. If you want to enjoy copyright material at your leisure, you should pay for it, but it shouldn't be a crime to share that with others providing you don't give them their own copy or charge them for the experience of doing so.
Indeed, I think that such an egalatarian approach might actually increase the sales of copyright material as more people are exposed to it. Closing down the avenue of 'passive advertising through exposure to product' is surely not good for business?
Glancing back over the history of law-enforcement, it becomes apparent that there is indeed a course of action that can be taken. When the law fails the people, the people take ownership of the law. Sometimes its called vigilantism, but I prefer to call it justice.
Now, I am not advocating that we storm BT and burn their server racks, but I think we should take a leaf out of Mark Thomas’ parliament square protests (If you’re not aware of this campaign against the erosion of our civil rights, then you should take a close look right away, this Phorm thing is only another maifestation of the same issues).
As you may be aware, it is illegal to hold a protest in Parliament Square (and a good square mile around parliament) without consent of the local police. You can obtain the form from the police. So, mr Thomas, instead of rounding up lots of people and performing ONE protest, rounded up lots of people and got them to put in SEPERATE requests, all for the same day and time. He does this every wednesday now, I believe…. …you can imagine the pain this causes the authorities. Sooner or later they will HAVE to review it, especially as the movement grows…
I say we do the same thing with Phorm.
Don’t bother with the class actions… EVERYONE put in a complaint to their local police… spread the word, get your friends and families involved… make this an issue that they CANNOT ignore… and when they try to make ANOTHER complaint….
Sooner or later, they will have to act.
Justice belongs to the People, not to the corporations or their government lapdogs!
One of the fundamental mistakes of 'our side' in the so-called 'war on terror' is the propagation of the fundamental idea that we can fight it using conventional weapons and tactics. 'Shock & Awe', occupational forces, uniformed troops, committees, legislations, sanctions - These methods will simply not function against an enemy (real or imagined can be debated elsewhere, I am, for the moment, assuming the enemy and the threat is real and as described by our overlords *ahem*).
The use of massive force to supress these 'terror cells' simply leads to large scale suffering and, as a consequence, the alienation of civilian populations will lead, inevitably, only to a strengthening of our enemies. Therefore, I can only applaud those who take the fight to 'the new battlefield' as chosen by those same enemies.
If Al Qaeda want to fight a propaganda war using the internet, then they had best be ready to do battle there and I suspect they are woefully under-equipped to do so.
Bottom line : I'd rather that a few websites got trashed than any more people die in bombings, be they from suicide-looneys or from tactical short range laser-guided munitions.
"If you start killing people, the only thing you can beg for is a humane death..."
Does this extend to the massive (some would say disproportionate) levels of death caused by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, or is this something you reserve only for the foreigners?
The scale of civilian deaths in Iraq far outweighs the deaths of US/UK citizens and military personnel in all engagements, including the tragic events of 9/11.
Wearing a uniform doesn't make it 'right and just'.
SecuROM is not a 'state of the art' copy protection system. There are applications in the wild that can rip it away from a game in mere seconds, and they're not new - They've been around for a couple of years now. That leaves us questioning why EA thought they'd use it - I suspect a licensing deal of some kind with an enforceable contract.
On the other hand, I installed Spore GE along with SecuROM (unsuspectingly) and I have to say that it seems to have absolutely no impact on the game, my PC or my internet connectivity. All seems well. (same with BioShock too), so I'm not worried about it....
..On the other (third) hand, I have *major* gripes with the game content itself - this simply IS NOT THE GAME we were shown in earlier demos and videos, but a rather poor collection of mini-games linked by a tenuous macro-model. Spore was set to revolutionise gaming, and now is nothing more than a joke, destined to go down in gaming history as one of the greatest flops of all time.
I will be burying mind out in the Nevada Desert alonside all those copys of Atari's ET - The Game.
Mine is the one with the parrot on the shoulder.
Okey doke, lets try this on for size shall we?
God is not real. No more than fairies, father xmas, buddha, mohammed, bugs bunny, Frodo Baggins or my invisible friend, Jack.
Any adult who believes in unproveable things is often labelled as a crank (see: UFOlogy for examples) and at worst they are labelled as medically insane.
Those who believe in God are simply deluded and need help. Belief in God is a stupid and primitive way to look at the world, fostered only in primitive minds. In the hands of the more capable thinker it is a tool cynically used to control the sheep-like masses in order to further personal power and wealth.
I repeat, those who believe in God are simply backwards and primitive.
If you would like to challenge me on this subject, I will meet you in court where you can attempt to refute the evidence I shall present for your delusion by proving that God exists.
See you there.
@WriteBaby -
Ah, thank you! Your breakdown of probability and possibility is exactly what I was trying to frame before writing. You saved me the effort with your excellent and succinct post!
@Soozy -
Have you seen the film 'idiocracy' - I think you'd find it amusing given your post! I also reccomend it to anyone else interested in the comical side of social evolution.
@Mark -
I'm sure you have heard the phrase before; "Respect is earned and not demanded" - Religion (not faith per se) has yet to earn respect on any reasonable or logical basis. Instead, as a rule, it demands respect from a stance of fear and ignorance. It is taught, by it's leaders, that faith is a virtue and that faith does not question. Since when, I ask, is unquestioning obedience considered a virtue? Surely only religion and patriotism (my country, right or wrong) demand such things. Respect will come for Religion when religion learns to respect my beliefs and rights too.
Thetans? Souls? Spirits?
Oh, for crying out loud! Don't any of these people realise the fallicy of Dualism? Besides which, surely if Scientology was a functional, practical and good way of life they'd be happy to spread it around the world?! (Gideon society, anyone??)
That aside, *all* religion is bunk, and I hope that it isn't recognised in UK law that the dedication of oneself to belief in a 'sky-god' is what it takes to create a religion! (Although, that explains why Jedi was rejected during the census eh?).
Yes, I will cheerfully warn the world about the dangers of so-called religion, but at the same time I will defend peoples right to be stupid and believe in what they wish because that, in turn, defends my right to point out how truly misled they are.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
