... to crack a nut.
Although personally I think those who propose this sort of nonsense should get the sledgehammer in the nuts...!
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Yes it is, it's to get us even more used to the idea that the Government can monitor us wherever we go, whatever we do, whoever we talk to, whatever web sites we visit, whatever we buy...
The more used we are to this, the less we'll be (or we're supposed to be) likely to object to Government collated and controlled Databases of our DNA or our purchases or our movements or our web browsing or our phone calls...
Remember: It's for your own good, citizen!
> Parents just don't get it - its all about the money
No, you don't, get it, it's about not inflicting *your* opinions (not facts) on others.
This ban is simply another example of people trying to control what people may or may not see, just because they don't like it and you are tagging along with them.
"Exposing minors to depictions of violence in video games, including sexual and heinous violence, makes those minors more likely to experience feelings of aggression, to experience a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent antisocial or aggressive behavior," the legislation claimed.
The only problem is that there is no credible proof of this being "more likely", nor of any of the other claims. There is a lot of questionable research, with dubious conclusions from flawed testing methods, but that is not a sound basis for law.
As for "What am I trying to teach my child by letting them play violent video games?" do you pre-emptively check every book, tv show, movie or whatever else your child wants to look at to ensure that it only contains "acceptable moral messages"?
You must be one hell of a killjoy! (Oh, hang on, that contains the word "kill" doesn't it...?"
"The ICO now believes that the proposed new law poses some dangers to privacy "
Well, that's great, but how the hell, then, did they come to their first conclusion that "Some have suggested that the Bill’s information sharing provisions represent an unwarranted interference with the privacy of personal information. We do not agree."?
Were they asleep when people were pointing this out?
... lambasted the hackers motives. He told The Register: "It is deplorable that these saboteurs will go to such extremes as to infringe on our and others' freedom of speech on the internet."
ROFL! Isn't this more than a touch ironic coming from someone whose industry supports and promotes the infringement of the right of individuals to listen to music when and how they choose!
What are these idiots smoking? If there was ever a way to "promote their message and to encourage engagement" of extremists by students, this is it! "Hey, are you a Muslim student? Then we think you're a terrorist! WE'RE WATCHING YOU!"
If I was still a student I'd do my damndest to look at these sites every day and if anyone left their computer unattended, sneak a quick look at these sites on their ID too and if (as I managed when I was a student) I managed to shoulder surf a lecturer's log in details, you can be certain that they would be looking at the most extremist material of all!
> Streaming is already covered
There is *NO* offence of "making extreme pornography", unlike the offence of "making child pornography" (which is just a weasel clause in itself that makes for better headlines).
PS @ J
"Fine and dandy. Do something, then! Bunch of Internet whiners..."
How do you know? FYI I've been a member of Backlash http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ since this so-called "Extreme Pornography" nonsense started and have written to and e-mailed MPs, Lords, Newspapers and many forums. Now I'm a member of the Consenting Adult Action Network http://www.caan.org.uk/
I only regret that, due to work commitments, I'll be unable to visit the Convention on Modern Liberty on the 28th http://www.modernliberty.net/ but you can be sure I'll be seeing what comes out of it (which will be a lot more sensible than what comes out of our Government, I have no doubt)
I'm sure, however, that a lot of posters on here have also, in their way, put their shoulders to the wheel of protest against this law, so dismissing people as "internet whiners" without any evidence seems pointless.
... which is not good law-making practice"
Since when has *that* stopped this bunch of Nanny State idiots?
@Doesn't this make...
Good idea: create a new form of RickRolling whereby we trick MPs into clicking on a link that leads to an "illegal image", then, as soon as they do, we log their IP address and call the Police!
We could call it Prick Rolling...
Meanwhile, of course, building on a law that has no legitimate basis, our Control Freak Government wants to extend that to make it illegal to look at anything not "State Approved" and another precious Civil Liberty is whittled away a bit further :-(
,,, her "loose" use of language "plays into the hands of our enemies"
You mean as opposed to Labour's "loose use of language" which passes laws which are so vague and incomprehensible that even their own Ministry of Justice can't say what they cover?
Or their "loose use of language" that tries to sneak even more power-grabbing legislation through in the guise of the "Coroners and Justice Bill"?
Or their "loose use of language" that spreads FUD around like manure until we're buried in so much shit that we can't even see daylight in our new Big Brother state...?
PS El Reg - Here's another vote for a V for Vendetta icon!
... as to why such major changes to data sharing law are included in an unrelated piece of legislation rather than in a separate bill so the issues would be properly discussed.
The answer is in the question!
The Government doesn't *want* this stuff to be "properly discussed". I'm willing to place a small wager right now that this bill will be rushed through Parliament and subject to a guillote to ensure that there is *not* sufficient time for proper discussion.
I note from that article in the Guardian that the landlord raised this issue with Emily Thornberry, the local Labour MP and was told, astonishingly, that the right of residents not to become victims of crime overrode his concerns.
Presumably the right of residents to be presumed innocent is also similarly over-ridden!
She also said there was a problem with antisocial behaviour in the area and that the majority of residents were in favour of more CCTV cameras.
I wonder if these are the same people who keep coming up to Wacky Jacqui in the street demanding ID cards?
And what if, just now, we had suddenly invented petroleum powered cars and had to build an infrastructure to a) get oil out of the ground, b) refine it, c) transport it to filling stations?
Exactly how efficient would that be starting from scratch?
No longer can the Government claim that "we're introducing these laws because the Security Services want them" when the former head of the Security Service is saying that these laws are actually counterproductive, making their jobs more difficult and driving people *towards* the terrorists instead of encouraging them to act against them!
Of course whether the Government pays any attention to this (or anyone else) is another matter...
... we have the Scots and the Pilots saying no. We have Dame Stella Rimington objecting to the Government's "culture of fear", we have the International Commission of Jurists condemning ill thought out, knee-jerk anti-terror laws and what is our Government's response?
Answer: "We don't give a toss what anyone else says, we're doing this anyway."
Yes, we should certainly ban this game and draw a "line in the sand".
Whilst we're at it, let's ban books that advocate:
1) Stoning your children to death for being unruly.
2) Cut off the noses and ears and ears of promiscuous women, then burning them in fire and taking their children and stripping them naked.
3) Forcing a victim of rape to marry the man who raped her.
4) Killing a prostitute if you get her pregnant.
5) Killing every man, woman and child in a community if they don't believe what you do.
6) The cutting off of a woman's hands for touching her husband's genitals when trying to protect him from an attacker.
7) Offering your virgin daughters to a mob to stop them killing your guests
8) Being willing to murder your son because someone tells you to do it.
9) Having children torn to death by bears for laughing at a man's bald head.
10) Producing offspring with your widowed sister-in-law (and then being killed for refusing)
Guess which Book these all come from...
How can such things be allowed in print?
Surely we must draw a Line in the Sand against such things!
> Parents should take greater responsibility for what their children get up to on the internet
In other news...
Pope found to be Catholic.
Bear seen defecating in arboreal environment.
In more interesting news, a quick glance at their site notes that Media March "heartily endorses the Christian aspirations which have been publicly displayed, ever since 1931, at BBC Broadcasting House in London. We recognise that these are in accordance with Philippians 4:8"
It also links to Media Watch (the latest incarnation of the Mary Whitehouse Brigade) saying:
"mediawatch-uk and mediamarch are independent organisations, but we pursue very similar aims and often work in cooperation on current issues.
"We are grateful to mediawatch-uk for regularly passing on to us vital information and timely advice.:
In other words, they're just another bunch of narrow-minded prudes who think that their personal tastes should govern what everyone else is allowed to see.
And as for "Was there a single reason they could advance as to why all new PCs should not come with optional porn filters on as default?" well, no, not a single reason, several reasons, for instance:
1) If I want to buy a "bare bones" PC I don't want any software installed on it, full stop.
2) I don't have kids, but even if I did, if anything is going to be filtered on my PC, it is MY decision, not the State's nor a bunch of prod-noses.
3) If I'm going to install filtering software, I want to be able to choose for myself which software I install, not have the choice (probably M$) imposed on me (and probably jacking up the price!)
4) What else might a State-sponsored piece of filtering software *also* choose to block? Would it be subject to automatic updates so that if there's more legislation like the so-called "Extreme Pornography" laws, the State could force it to add more content/ sites to its blocked list?
5) Would such software start inPhorming the authorities that I've tried to access certain sites...?
I'm sure there are more, but I've got to get on with other stuff...
... a weekly session where the PM spends a half hour weaseling, evading and utterly failing to reply to anything substantive put to him by the Opposition whilst his own benches sycophantically ask "questions" such as "does my Right Honourable Friend agree that we're absolutely wonderful?"
Just corrected it for you.
Oh, sorry, isn't this WikiRegister...?
Can I first just point out that 150- 250 kg of motorbike and rider, even when acting irresponsibly, is usually only a danger to themselves, whereas 1,500 kg or so of car and driver just acting *carelessly* by failing to indicate, undertake proper observation or using their mobile phone is a danger to *everyone*, especially those not in a metal box.
As for the videos in the Theory Test, over 25 years of cycling experience meant that when I took the test, I had to *slow down* my click responses because I was identifying a hazard before it was a "developing hazard", I'd already identified a situation as "something to be watched" but the system wouldn't recognise that as a valid response until it was actually *becoming* a danger.
Oh, and the new motorcycle test which was supposed to be introduced last year has been delayed until at least the end of March because there are simply insufficient testing areas available.
Oddly enough, there is, at present, no similar car test, even though over two-thirds of the accidents involving vehicles and motorcycles are the fault of the driver (Booth report 1989) ie the classic SMIDSY - Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You...
You, as a driver, are responsible for undertaking proper observation before making a manoeuvre to ensure that it will not jeopardise another road user (Davis vs Schrogin 2006 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/974.html )
"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."
- Douglas Adams.
Perhaps if you'd been an ape-man you'd have been telling other ape-men that there was no point in banging the rocks together, guys...
> Anyone who drives a motorcycle like that isn't likely to make it past the first set of traffic-lights.
Graham's three rules of defensive riding:
1) Don't assume they've seen you
2) Don't assume they'll respect your right of way
3) Do assume they'll do something stupid which will kill you unless you get out of their way.
It's not how it should be, but it's certainly how it is :-(
(And anyone who says the answer is Loud Pipes is just an anti-social git)
I hope to buggery that it comes with some form of traction control, then, so if you grab too much throttle you don't end up getting spat off the back because you won't be able to slip the clutch to control the power!
(And WTH is with the trellis-work on the sides???)
Ok, hands up who wants a job which will simply involve sitting there, all day, every day, watching inane, stupid, boring, trivial video clips for hour after hour (with only the possible occasional bit of porn to lighten your day) as they are uploaded to YouTube or any other such site?
And then think how much of this you've *missed* because it's being uploaded to blogs or web pages or other such media...
Sure, take the stuff down if someone complains about it, but as for the rest, well the name Canute springs to mind.
... the rather good Stephen King short story "Trucks" from the "Night Shift" anthology...?
(Unfortunately he then made the mistake of trying to make it into a film himself which turned into the rather execrable Maximum Overdrive of which the only redeeming feature was the soundtrack by AC/DC)
... The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act allows for someone to be barred for "conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to [the Independant Barring Board] that the conduct is inappropriate"
So if you want to work as a Moderator now, you're going to have to let the IBB scan through your hard drive and check you don't have any "sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings" even if it is consensual BDSM!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019