Why am I reminded...
... of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...?
6903 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"...?
> What they are basically saying is - "we care so little about who does the cleaning we couldn't identify them if we tried, "
Yeah, well they all look alike, don't they...
Seriously, though, I too, find myself in the unexpected position of agreeing with RMT strike action!
"Its should be expected that the police try to push the boundaries - infact its healthly that they do so."
No way in hell is it "healthy" that the Police push the boundaries, see the G20 protests (aggressive tactics, concealed ID numbers, assaults etc) for what happens when those boundaries start getting pushed!
The job of the Police is to Maintain the Queen's Peace so that people may go about their lawful business without let or hindrance and investigate breaches of the law, however they *MUST* do it within set limits otherwise they start becoming "Judge, Jury and Executioner".
Remember that the Police are a civilian organisation subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
... err, yes, but by the time I tell you, it'll be wrong...
Of course the Police aren't interested in these incidents, there's no Government targets for them to meet...
Hmm, quoting from the Odyssey File (the book of the making of 2010 by Arthur C Clarke and Peter Hyams)...
"We have arrived at the Rectal First Big Ballute Plasma Shower Gas Saving Low Energy Fart Aerobraking Manoeuvre As Conceived By Arthur C Clarke (It can also be referred to as the old R.F.B.B.P.S.G.S.L.E.F.A.M. ploy)
Thank you for posting some of my comments to you, although I note that you didn't quote the bit where I pointed out that your "So Nazi [sic] are cool?" comment was a Straw Man.
I also added a PS saying "would you object if Max Mosley was a customer of mine...?" but you never replied to that...
Thanks for saving me having to type all of that lot!
.. but about the plans for the Death Star, well, I was on a train and I took them out of my briefcase, and you'll never believe this...
... aak, gakk, gasp...
... Fire In The Hole!
... of the old Not the Nine o'Clock News sketch featuring Rowan Atkinson as a pizza maker who announces:
"One pizza Napoli...
"...with extra mozarella!"
"The rights of children carry more weight than unhindered mass communication."
Excuse me? Is she saying that the rights of children are more important than the right of everyone else to enjoy freedom of expression? Or that these two rights are somehow mutually exclusive? Or just that she's another clueless politician?
...will tend to reject new technologies that threaten revenues from existing business models without very good reasons.
See the MPAA, the RIAA, the BPA and a whole bunch of others for more details...!
... keep reading Omaha as Obama...?
... also be searched for hidden cameras etc?
(And will they be tested to see if they have a photographic memory...?)
"Beside the obviously demeaning effects simulated rape has towards women, there is growing evidence that using extreme porn is bad for the men who do it and the relationships these men are in."
I'm sorry, but have you been reading the Government's Rapid Evidence Assessment instead of this article? Because that's the only way that you could actually come to that conclusion!
All the way through this article is pointing out how flawed this "evidence" you refer to is and the lack of factual basis for it, yet you trot out the tired old "it's demeaning to women" and "it's bad for men" arguments again.
Personally I think that Reality TV programmes are demeaning to their participants and being unfaithful to your partner is bad for relationships (for men and for women) yet I wouldn't call for legislation to ban them.
About the only point you get right is that the Government *SHOULD* "put their efforts into examining the relationship between porn and sexual disfunction / relationship problems and the relationship between the porn derived objectification of women in the media and the growth of eating disorders and plastic surgery amongs women in the UK." but only if they actually do an impartial and unbiased study (instead of cobbling together something from reports which already agree with the conclusions they want to reach) because if they do, they'll almost certainly find that there is no relationship between these.
Of course they won't do that because it wouldn't fit with their (and your) "emotion based policy making"...
I was a member of the Backlash campaign against the so-called Extreme Pornography laws practically since its instigation, so many of the references above are familiar to me, yet even I have hardly seen a more comprehensive debunking of the Government's "evidence" for legislating against what we can read or see or do.
A link to this article is going straight to my MP!
You can do the same via http://www.writetothem.com
I have a mobile phone, but I very rarely carry it on because it is simply for *MY* convenience!
I don't need people to be able to contact me instantly, I don't need to get the latest gossip without delay, I don't need to be able to text someone or twitter whatever vague thoughts happen to be passing through my head at any particular moment...
I do carry it when I'm on my motorbike just in case I break down. I do carry it if I'm visiting someone and I'm running late. I do carry it if it is to my benefit.
If the State is going to track me whilst using it, then I'll keep the damn thing switched off unless and until *I* choose to use it!
Presumed innocence? Nope, it seems it's now Presumed Guilty if the State can't monitor my every movement...
was *last* week!
Well *that's* not very environmentally friendly...!
Try visiting your local Art House cinema and watch some of the stuff that is produced that equally has "no fucking plot development or acting," and some of which includes nudity.
The question is, simply, *WHY* should the BBFC be entitled to make decisions like this "for our own good" and the answer is that they shouldn't.
PS @ Richard: People have been coming up with post hoc justifications for banning stuff because of "copycat" incidents for a long time now, but that does not prove that the stuff they want banned *caused* the incident, only that there was a similarity in methodology.
And the "chances of another massacre" do not increase, only the chances of such a massacre getting widespread press coverage, hence the "epidemic of knife crime" last year that turned out to be nothing of the sort except for the fact that the media suddenly started making a big deal out of it.
And what scares *me* is people like you and Wacky Jacqui Smith and David Blunkett and Jack Straw and all other of your ilk who assume that simply by *watching* something, you're going to "encouraged" to go out and do it without any regard for the consequences or the safety of the people involved.
Ever since Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" there have been those who want to take us down the Thought Crime route of "if they don't see it, they won't do it", the so-called Extreme Pornography Legislation being just the latest example of this nonsensical argument.
Of course the fact that the BBFC has rejected this film's application for a certificate means virtually damn all now, not least because it will still be entirely legal to publish the film abroad and then import it into the UK, you just won't be able to buy it from a shop *IN* the UK!
The BBFC is an obsolete organisation that is still trying to give itself some sort of meaning in a world that has passed it by.
... our self-healing, self-replicating, self-improving machine overlords...!
... such boss-napping is unacceptable and that workers could face prosecution.
But they're unlikely to because he knows that the French Unions hold too much political power...
... as greedy bastards with their snouts in the trough for whatever they can get.
Of course if they were given a "fleet" of electric cars, no doubt they'd still be demanding milage allowances for the flash motors they drive to and from their constituencies because the electric cars "wouldn't be up to the job".
PS @ Tony Smith, Editor, Reg Hardware
Highway code paragraph 264: Lane discipline
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. "
Which part of "Lane discipline" don't you understand?
This is just another attempt to bring in a law like that banning "glorifying terrorism" etc.
But how long before that ban on "Islamic extremist material" is extended to other "extremist material"? How long before the definition of "extremist material" is expanded to other content deemed "unacceptable" by the various state? How long before we're told that "you can't see this because we think it's bad for you"?
This is just another assault on the freedoms that the internet allows us and which are *so* threatening to our Great Leaders that they must be stopped.
"just like that poor guy in America who had his artwork stolen and then got a bill from stockart.com for his own creations!"
This case might not be as cut and dried as it is being made out to be.
See the comment from anubis2night at
Jacqui Smith today announced that the Government will be introducing new legislation to prosecute male chips who offer meat to female chimps without first ensuring that the female chimp is not under the control of another male chimp...
... Cyberspace, originally coined by William Gibson in Burning Chrome?
or Waldo - a type of remote manipulator from Robert Heinlein's story of the same name?
What next? Making it an Oyster Card as well? Adding RFID and putting scanners on every lamp post? Requiring all computers to have a card scanner? Having you key in your ID Number and PIN before you make a phone call?
After all, if we can track and trace everyone's every move and download and e-mail and phone call that will make us *SO* much safer...
There's a myth that Henry VIII wrote "Greensleeves", tinny renditions of which can be heard on cheap phones with a "hold" facility.
So I said "Over the next month or so", but you did a single "spot survey" and then extrapolated from that because it gave a result you liked...
Hmm, do you work for the Government?
Let's try a little survey:
Over the next month or so (to be fair, because the weather is going to be warm enough to stand outside without freezing anything off) count the number of people in the pub and then count the number of people go outside and smoke. Divide one by the other and get a ratio.
Now consider what the pub would be like for all those inside who *aren't* smoking, don't want to breathe the stuff or end up reeking of it simply to enjoy an evening with their friends, but would be forced to endure it if there wasn't a smoking ban.
I entirely support the right of individuals to make their own lifestyle choices, but not when they force those choices on others out of selfishness.
... our Government shows its inability to control even what it owns itself, yet still thinks that it can (and should!) control what we can see and download...!
... all they need is a supply of unobtainium...
... so having unprotected sex with someone (of whatever age) is *less* risky than shagging someone outside your age group...?
Paris, because... oh figure it out!
... Heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action...
... Four counts!
"...outsmart common security measures; gain access to a remote server; hijack TCP connections and more."
And then get arrested and extradited by the Yanks who you've embarassed because they had shite security on their systems...
And the turbines spin around depending on which way the wind is going...!
They're just jealous because the English Government got there first with their ban on "extreme pornography"!
No, they'll set up a consultation asking the Police, the Security Services and similar groups if such a register can be established and then, amazingly, decide that it's not a good idea...!
"Personally I'm quite happy for the Govt to go round making stupid statements like this, and then to sit back and watch as the reality of what they are requesting slowly dawns.
"We all suspect they are idiots, so why not let them open their mouths and remove all doubt!"
Unfortunately they are idiots who have the power to pass laws like the "Dangerous Pictures Act" outlawing so-called Extreme Pornography.
It doesn't matter that this is a ridiculous law which will have no real effect on what it is targetting, it doesn't matter that it's effectively unenforceable unless the Police get their hands on someone's computer for some other reason, it doesn't matter that it's very probably in breach of at least two and maybe three articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, what matters is that the damn law got on the statute books in the *first* place!
These idiots don't just go around making statements, they go around passing laws to "make the world a better place" (at least in their minds) and then leave us and now ISPs suffering the consequences.
So don't be happy with this, write to your MP and complain via http://www.writetothem.com
Why not have the Home Office equip everyone with a modified equivalent of the Joo-Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses which, at the slightest hint of an underage picture, immediately go black to prevent people from seeing something which may offend them...? (The "them" being Wacky Jacqui and the Home Office, of course)
Meanwhile we go another step down the road of complete Government control over our web browsing for our own "protection" and because WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
... let's hope that they find the system a) unreliable and b) unworkable such that c) they'll realise that biometrics are no magic solution.
> You got my email then :)
And mine! ;-)
> PVC thigh-highs cost at least £70
Sheesh, do some research, you can get them from £55!
... a tanker-load of Evening Primrose Oil, please?
(Mine's the one with the target on the back... ;-) )
Who, exactly, really *wants* 3D TV? If it was so great, why haven't 3D movies become the norm?
Frankly I'd prefer it if they put the money into making a few more decent TV shows!
> Public roads are free to use, but you still have to pay for some form of conveyance to employ it.
Yes, but I don't have to pay the Government for permission to ride a bicycle (or a horse) on the highway.
Nor should I be obliged to pay them for permission to download content which is provided for free.
As for those who trot out the tired old "the BBC should take advertising", try doing some research and look at the state of the advertising market at the moment. There is simply *not* enough advertising money around and I have little doubt that more than a few of the smaller "commercial" channels will go to the wall over the next year or so as their major source of revenue dries up. Now imagine that the advertisers took most/ all of their money and put it into the BBC instead because that's where the bigger audiences are...
Flame of the Week!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017