The chances of that...
... are a million to one...!
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
You know, the one where a lot of innocent people were charged by Jim Gamble and co with downloading CP because they had been the victims of *CREDIT CARD THEFT*??
Yes, that's right their card details had been *stolen*, just like many other people's card details are stolen every year.
So what's to stop someone *stealing* someone's pre-paid credit card and using that to download CP?
Oh, that's right, *nothing*.
It's good to see El Reg post these guidelines, but may I make a few suggestions:
1) The author of an article should have no ability to moderate (or edit) comments. If allowed, this simply leads to a blatant conflict of interest. Also the decision to allow/ not allow comments on an article should be down to El Reg's Editorial or Moderation team, not the individual author.
2) If an article is based on the author's opinion of a published work etc, it should be clearly marked as such. Occasionally some articles have appeared in El Reg which are extraordinarily one-sided yet not marked as "Comment" or "Opinion".
3) It would be useful if, in the "My Posts" section, there was an indication of whether someone else had replied to your comment (eg a line saying "2 replies") to save having to check each one to see if someone has responded.
4) Since you can tick a box to post anonymously, why not have a box to tick that comes up with [NO TITLE], or if you reply to someone else's post without including a title of your own, have the forum system stick in Re: [previous title]
I suggest you read this article:
In 1980 parking charges were £1 a day.
In 1990 that became £1 per hour
In 1995 that became £2 per hour
In 2000 that became £4 per hour
Now in 2010 it's £5 an hour!
What more, exactly are you getting for that £5 an hour?
What is WC Council getting? Well, they're getting a way to pay down their £22 *million* overspend see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8470804.stm
... yet all they are doing is introducing a £1 charge for parking bays that were, previously, free. There is absolutely *NO* benefit to bikers, no extra security features, no extra parking spaces, nothing that justifies this charge other than it makes money.
Yet somehow this is "in the public interest".
Presumably that "public interest" is that the WC Council doesn't have to make savings elsewhere because they can tax bikers...
... is that, as with many other New Labour laws, the RIPA is vague and ill-defined and pretty much as soon as it was brought in, started experiencing major function creep as, for instance Local Councils etc suddenly realised that "hey, we can spy on people to check they live in the right place to send their kid to this school, the law says we can!".
The aim of the review is to ensure that Investigatory Powers are *properly* regulated and targetted to where they are needed, rather than to where they are wanted.
Polanski's "much more serious crime" was not at issue, what was the issue was that a deal was struck that would have involved him not being jailed after the girl's parents agreed that he should not be imprisoned.
What he then did was to leave the USA after it was suggested that the Judge was going to jail him anyway, which is an entirely different matter.
The girl involved has subsequently said that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him to be jailed either.
It seems that, unlike the UK, at least the Swiss aren't willing to turn someone over to the USA without better grounds for extradition that "we want him, hand him over".
I agree with you that the idea of specifying gender (which is not a binary condition) on identity documents is dodgy given that it's by no means a binary condition in all cases.
But there is one point I have to question where you say "a person's apparent sex is something that even the dopiest witness can occasionally remember."
I could introduce you to people whose apparent sex is by no means obvious, either through genetics or personal choice of dress and personal appearance.
Not whilst they can't even do some basic searches to discover that British Petroleum merged with America's Amoco (formerly Standard Oil) back in 1998.
Or that the biggest shareholder (and thus, technial owner) of BP is the American JP Morgan Chase with 28.34% of the shares.
Or that the that exploded was owned and operated by an American firm, Transocean and that only about 8 people on there were BP employees and BP only had a 65% share in the well.
Or that the failed 'blow out preventer' was made by another American firm - Cameron.
Nope, it's all the fault of the Brits...!
Are you *seriously* trying to justify your arguments by saying that "Well 12 American Jurists agreed with this, so it's ok"??? They probably thought they were being reasonable because the record companies original intent was to sue him for $4,500,000!
But still, in all your ranting and name calling and silly analogies and shouting "FAIL!" as if it was a valid argument in itself, you don't answer my question: HOW MUCH of that money is going to go to the ARTISTS?
Oh, and just to clarify, I have no problems with artists signing deals with corporations, provided those deals give reasonable recompense to the artists for their work, instead of much of it being creamed off by those who do nothing in the creative process, ok?
You claim that I am supporting or condoning theft and that I am not "sticking up for the little guy" which only goes to show how little you comprehend.
Let's take the analogy posted by Anonymous Coward @ Sunday 11th July 2010 19:18 GMT where he says "obtaining an item whilst depriving the provider of that item of their desired/expected recompense".
Now, being a small businessman, I am ALL FOR allowing the provider of that item with recompense, but imagine what would be the state of affairs if I made an item for a cost to me of eg £5 and then had to sell it to a Tescos/ other big store/ distributor/ whatever for £6 only to see them retail it for £20. I make £1, they make £14, so do you consider that to be reasonable?
The point is that that is how the record industry used to work. An artist gets a pittance of the final sale value of their work and *THAT* is the obsolete revenue model that the Recording Industries want to protect and preserve and they will use every case of file sharing to justify this position by claiming ridiculous "losses" they incur and even when someone gets the amount of damages they have to pay "reduced" from $675,000 to $67,000, the Recording Industry is still onto a winner since there's no way most people could pay that and even if they could, exactly *how much* of that amount would go back to the original artist...?
If someone *really* wants to "think of the children" they should provide them with the information they need, rather than trying to keep them in the dark in the hope that "well, if they don't hear about it, they won't do it".
The latter statement has been the justification of every bit of censorship from the Extreme Porn legislation and the Dangerous Drawings law back to when Socrates was sentenced to death for "Corrupting the youth of Athens".
Information will always get out one way or another, trying to deny children information just means they will get it from other (unreliable) sources and nobody benefits except the "Moral Crusaders" who feel smug that everyone is benefitting from their repressive attitudes.
Welcome to the wonderful world of amanfrommars1. Nobody knows who (or what) he is or whether he's just a failed attempt at AI.
Most regular El Reg readers know that whilst, occasionally, he comes out with something that is actually comprehensible, generally it's best to just skip over his posts and save yourself the time...
... is all very well provided you're not dealing in "adult" products, in which case, as happened to someone I know, they suddenly found themselves being informed that Worldpay would forthwith no longer provide services to their (entirely legal) business.
For an SME, having to change payment providers at no notice is a serious problem.
When the Extreme Porn legislation was first suggested in this country one point that those of us who objected to was the fact that, as with your cousin, it would make important safety information more difficult (if not potentially illegal) to access and thus lead to more such avoidable tragedies.
PS One side note: the CB2000 has been discontinued and replaced with the CB6000-s ;-)
I have fundamental objections to the UK DNA database and its related nonsense because it treats *everyone* as criminals, whether innocent or guilty.
Scotland, however, has done some joined up thinking and is only holding the DNA of children if they are *convicted* of an offence and if they want to keep it, they have to demonstrate a need for it to be held for more than three years.
That is a sensible use of DNA and model that the English Government should consider copying.
... on both sides.
This whole fiasco could be ended if politicians had the guts to put their hands up and say "ok, we admit it, we cannot ever win this phony war on drugs, so we'll put the barons and the dealers out of business by decriminalising the product and getting the pharmaceutical companies to turn it out in clean, uncontaminated retail quantities (which they could do easily since they already produce it for the hospital market, eg what do you think diamorphine pain killer is?) and save a lot of suffering all around.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018