* Posts by bonkers

163 posts • joined 13 Dec 2011


Try a 'shroom before ruling on chill pills, boffin tells gov


Why are doctors so afraid of prescribing pleasure?

In my opinion, it's because, before WW1 they would, for a price, come round the house and exorcise the wife and rid her of excess anxieties etc. by causing her to release the pent-up vapours that are the result of not being able to ejaculate. These were released during "hysterical paroxysms", brought about by all manner of patented inventions that bear a striking resemblance to today's vibrators.

They were a bit embarrassed about that, pissing on your shoes and telling you its raining.

Anyway, the fundamental issue for me is one of liberty. I do not see a need nor a right to prohibit consenting adults in private from doing whatever they choose.

American search team fails to find women's G-spot


Esprit d'escalier (the wit of the staircase)

"evidence of presence is disproof of absence"

Thumb Up

sure thing Mike...



Is it a ghost?

- No it is not a ghost, but a thing that is human sensory thing, a perception. Consider it like "ticklishness", or have we determined that that doesn't exist either?

My point is that as a phenomenon, as an erogenous zone, it exists, even if not necessarily in all women.

The physical form similarly, just "some" evidence is all that is needed - even if it is rare, it exists. Anyway, there seems to be quite a lot of physiological variability in this sort of thing, try wikipedia on the subject.

Thumb Down


would any of you care to explain what is wrong with my post above?

Surely we are talking of the existence of an erogenous zone here, which need not necessarily have a distinct physical form. I see the denial of its existence as akin to saying there is no physical evidence for you having your own name, whatever your insistence.


I think you have got your own name wrong.

What an outrageous statement - if we can't see it, you can't feel it ??

I think people know their own names, like they know their own bodies. They do not need visual proof of a known thing. I don't care if it uses the same density of nerves, or if it puts more power down them, or if there are strong tissue differences or none. It is a sensory thing, and as such exists merely if noticed.

For what its worth, there is a noticeable physical structure, but that may not be universal.

Flog secondhand MP3s at your peril - law guru


probably just us now..

we're on page 2 now due to raging arguments above, however I'm still inclined to add comment, if its OK with you.

Agreed, any common conception is not necessarily relevant to a legal definition, e.g. of "copy".

In the analogue era, the electronic storage of an item was deemed a copy, fair enough, there is this one and the original analogue copy.

However, if the original is an electronic copy then the right to possess an electronic copy is what you have actually purchased. Therefore if you move that copy from one place to another, it should be legal.. ?


Thanks Neil

Thanks indeed for providing the source, I do like informed argument...

Would it not be true to say that teh wording of the act still hinges on whether a "copy" has been made - i.e. if there are now two things where there was originally one? - this is certainly the commonly held notion of re-production.

My point is that you can keep the global population of said MP3 file to one throughout the process, OK maybe 1.00001, as you need a good copy of the block in transit in case it gets lost on the wire.

I'm not attempting to argue law, only against the premise that drew the judgement, I see it as inessential to copy a file in order to move it from one place to another.


define "copy"

"because the act of transmitting the file from one person to another necessitates the making of a copy, which is in breach of the rights holder's copyright."

this is not absolutely necessary, merely helpful, in case of a break in the communications.

It would be possible to define protocols, based on say Xmodem, that destroyed the original packets once they had been received and verified by the far end. This would be a "move" rather than a "copy".

one would have to have a reasonably sophisticated recovery program, and T's &C's that say its yours as soon as you receive the first packet, though you could reverse the process and recover the original if you had to.

Kids should be making software, not just using it - Gove



Would I be alone in suggesting that a foundation in assembler would be a good idea, in as far as it allows you to completely understand the machine, no mysteries, no unknowns. From this position then one can move on, knowing the ground is firm beneath your feet... It is then a ladder of trust to involve the compiler, various includes etc etc - but at least you know there is a level of truth, a bedrock. OK, it is unexciting compared to what can be achieved by cobbling together chunks of others' code, but the value of this is questionable - so what if i can make an unstable MP3 player - if i don't know how it works, or why it doesn't?

Higgs boson hunters have god particle in their sights



Your point is correct, but, erm, misguided, Iron and Helium are stable by virtue of their binding energy per nucleon, but this reduces their energy density, in bomb-makers terms, as this binding energy is what is released when Hydrogen fuses into Helium, , or any other nucleide. Therefore Hydrogen is the most energy dense material that is also stable, I am not looking for the most stable material.


seven times ten to the fourteen collisions, if you must fucking know.



Your making the same mistake as Thatcher, who praised the good and important work they did at CERN, thinking they made atom bombs. Stupid cow. They didn't, don't and never will. Nuclear physics and bomb-making split in about 1950. The H-bomb uses the most energy-dense stable material in the universe, Hydrogen, in its various isotopic forms. You just need an A-bomb to get it going.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020