"It sounds like you're having sex. We would like to recommend the following pizza delivery companies..."
6905 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"It sounds like you're having sex. We would like to recommend the following pizza delivery companies..."
> I don't think they got the reference....
It was probably too Vega for it them to make Contact with. Maybe we should send a poet?
The term "Right of Way" is actually defined as the right to "pass and re-pass" across a piece of land, ie you can do so repeatedly without needing to ask (or be given) permission.
"Priority" means that you are legally entitled to go first, so if a pedestrian steps out into the street in front of a car and gets knocked down, they can't complain that it wasn't their fault because they had Right of Way. There are exceptions, of course, for example at a Zebra Crossing where once the pedestrian has set foot on it, they *do* have Priority and vehicles MUST stop for them.
Similarly, at a roundabout, you MUST give Priority to vehicles coming from the right, if you fail to do so and this results in an accident, you'll be liable.
Just what I was thinking! Have an upvote :-)
If so, they obviously haven't built themselves a Feersum Endjinn!
... but up until about a year ago, I had to use Trustwave to register the PCI compliance of my e-commerce site and they were using Flash!
There's a certain irony there...
... does it make that yoooowwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhh noise that the Twin Ion Engine fighers make in Star Wars?
"...you don't trust ANYONE and that makes you an anarchist..."
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of the people"
- V for Vendetta
Or, if you prefer:
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson
> Theresa May said the UK will still comply with ECHR laws even after Brexit.
And we should trust her?
What she said was "there would be no Parliamentary majority" for leaving the ECHR. The sub-text I hear is "yet..." given that she has made her position very clear.
My prediction is that, as with things like their creeping privatisation of the NHS and other sell-offs, instead of one big change we'll see a whole load of little amendments being made that, slowly but surely, will strip us of our Rights until we only have the ones that *she* likes left to us.
1 + 1 = 2
- Colossus: The Forbin Project
> Once upon a time I was instructed by my HoD to order 50 (Fifty) of a certain form, which I duly did in total accordance with his written note. What turned up was 50 pads of said form.
Good, but not quite as good as happened to a friend of mine who was told by his manager to order one of a certain item code.
He queried it and was basically told "just do what you're bloody well told".
Unfortunately said manager had put the wrong code down, so, instead of one small item, they got one *pallet* load of them!
The manager tried to blame my friend who produced the paperwork signed by the manager...
I think this is your sheepskin coat...
And the FBI and NSA et al will, of course *never* suggest that they should be given the option to re-enable tracking and monitoring controls, will they, boys and girls?
> some features of the game are not available
> They would not get away with that in this day and age
ORLY?! "Screenshots from a version you don't have..." (or words to that effect)
Gold, gold, gold, gold...
... for interfering with our Government's Right to snoop on us all and stop them doing whatever they deem necessary to protect us from terrerrists!
Now that we've voted for Brexit, we can be certain that we will be *so* much safer with the British Bill of Rights that Theresa May will Allow Us...
... there are already people in government looking to pass laws to make these illegal...
... We know that you can hear us...
Get your damned junk off our lawn!
Such matters are treated as "Strict liability" under English Law where you are effectively treated as "guilty unless you can prove your innocence".
[i]To prove most criminal offences, it must be shown that the actus reus (action) and mens rea (intention) are present.
Strict liability offences are offences where mens rea does not form a part of what it is necessary to prove the offence. These are offences where there is no mens rea required to establish liability, in relation to one or more elements of the actus reus of the offence; in short, the ‘guilty act’ is sufficient. [/i]
In a case like this, you would very likely not only have to prove the presence of malware but that you'd taken sufficient precautions to try to avoid it and that you hadn't deliberately allowed it to get onto your system so you could look at the kiddie porn and then claim "it was the malware that did it".
> PlusNet, has announced that it is going to raise prices and improve their FTTC service by cutting upload speeds by 50%.
And Big Brother has increased the chocolate ration to 20 grams...
> I'm an untrusting sod.
Or just sensible.
I read recently of an author who suddenly found that Google had deleted his Blogger account which had been running since 2002 for "terms of service violation" and removed his gmail account too.
Hopefully he had back-up copies of all his work, but it wasn't just the work, it was a network which he used to communicate with followers and other artists.
Things like this are why you should NEVER trust Cloud services, because they're entirely at the mercy of someone else's whims :-(
Why would Google need access to the Police's mugshots when it's got billions of images with links to people's profiles and location data already stored?
> Before anyone in the UK starts to feel a bit superior I would like to draw their attention to the following case.
Yes, the shooting of Harry Stanley in 1999
And it was the High Court, on Appeal, that decided that there wasn't enough evidence for a verdict of Unlawful Killing.
With Google, Facebook et al, you *are* the product...
Yes, because Bitcoins are only ever used for criminal activities and nobody will argue with "Won't Someone Think of the Children?" ...
... is treasonous, Citizen!
Mine's the Ultraviolet coat.
"...but I know it when I see it" as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said.
The problem is that what he or Mary Whitehouse or her "spiritual" successor might see is not what is actually there.
I run a business making affordable leather products which, as you may guess, is a euphemism for bondage gear and BDSM toys and my website has adult content, but it's not "pornographic" as far as I am concerned, but our Thought Police may think otherwise.
So do I have to ensure that everyone who visits it is over 18? If so, how? Do I make them supply a credit card number or maybe send a picture of their passport (hmm, nice opportunities for fraud there) ? Or perhaps they'll need a government issued ID card number...
Meanwhile all the other sites out there in the rest of the world don't have to have similar systems put in place because they're not based in the UK (or they're big enough that they can afford whatever programing and infrastructure costs are involved to introduce this system), so bang goes my business and all the money goes to a few big companies (who will, no doubt, have "tax efficient" accounting systems) or to foreign companies who will not pay anything to the UK Exchequer.
But, never mind, at least the children will be protected (well, apart from the ones who are smart enough to bypass this nonsense or just get their pr0n from non-UK sites...)
Back in the old days of 0898 numbers, whoever was Minister for Sex Crime decided that these (perfectly legal) numbers should be blocked by default on every phone line and, in order to access them, you would have to contact BT and say "Please can I have the naughty phone number block removed from my line".
Astonishingly, very few people were actually willing to do this and the (perfectly legal) adult premium phone line businesses saw their revenue plummet to virtually zero.
Eventually, of course, the default blocking was deemed to be unlawful and was removed, but it's clear that that short-sighted "won't someone think of the children" mentality hasn't gone away :-(
Time to arrest all those firearms-trained Police Officers...
... is Daesh laughing as another of our freedoms is whittled away a little more...
> If you had to "pass a test" how is that really any different than having to have the government approve your "free" speech before it could be published
Because the first four words of the Second Amendment are "A well regulated militia..."
At the moment there is insufficient regulation of the Right to Bear Arms.
>> Pound will tank so "exports will become more expensive".
> It is quite the opposite. Sir cheaper pound means more affordable exports so more exports.
(Slaps self on forehead) Duh!
That's what I get for writing that in a rush and editing on the fly (changing from imports to exports) without proof-checking :-(
The point I was aiming to make is that we, of course, import *more* from the EU than we export, so *imports* will become more expensive, which will have a deleterious effect on our balance of trade.
Pulling down the building you're living in with some vague hope that, somehow, after you do, a bright, shiny new one will magically appear in its place seems a rather short-sighted strategy...
Politicial union or a "United States of Europe" is one of those bogeymen that the Out campaign like to trot out to try to scare people into supporting them, just like the £350million figure (or 30 pence a day) or the millions of cheap workers who are going to flood in when countries like Turkey join the EU (well, if they ever do, given they are at least 20 years away from qualifying for membership if they ever manage to do that at all).
The fact is that there is a *LOT* of resistance to further union, even (or especially) in places like Germany and France and even if there was more than a vague statement of "ever closer union", consider that it took the USA over 100 years to achieve its complete union, so the idea that we'll suddenly have this foisted on us is nonsense.
To use this as a reason to vote Out is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and grandiose claims of "taking back control" (to give to whom? Boris, Nigel, Michael and Rupert Murdoch?) or some putative new "golden age of prosperity" (sterling will tank, the markets will probably take a massive hit, exports will become more expensive so our trade will drop and we'll have to renegotiate lots of trade deals which will *not* be to our benefit) or cutting down on immigration (which is about 0.5% of our total population) are all very well, but not backed up by facts.
This entire referendum is an internal squabble in the Tory Party which has somehow managed to suck the whole country into taking sides and Leaving in the hope of some pie-in-the-sky better future would be economic suicide.
So stopping terrorists from purchasing guns will not prevent mass shootings, but snooping on everyone *will*...?
... Before they start having to pay the Congestion Charge?
... home of "I'm alright, Jack, screw the little people..."
Of course it's always *their* fault that they're poor, look at people like JP Morgan and Carnegie and Rockefeller, *they* all managed to become massively rich so why can't everyone else?
Well, apart from the fact that they (and others like them) only became massively rich by screwing their workers with crap wages, trying to ensure that that labour couldn't organise and form Unions and, of course, using any and every "legal" or underhand method to bankrupt any possible competitors to preserve their monopoly positions which would allow them to charge as much as they wanted for their products and services...
Bless Help America!
That some people are shouting about the "undemocratic" EU (it isn't, unless all those MEPs are doing nothing), but we have to rely on the unelected House of Lords to do something to protect our privacy before it's sacrificed on the altar of security (which probably won't make us any more secure...)
"If it stops working, try turning it off and back on again..."
"...should go toward helping low-income families: for example, by subsidizing healthy foods, since low-income families will be most hurt by the tax."
But won't, because ,according to the Tories, nobody is poor. (At least nobody worth speaking of)
Was his name originally Eric Plunkett?
> the consortium that decided otherwise should be put up against a wall and shot.
A bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes... ;-)
... and allowed on a case-by-case (or situation-by-situation) basis rather than a blanket "If you want to use this app you have to let it have access to this list whether you think it needs it or not..."
"... for inconveniencing and potentially endangering the group."
"We have these Windows phones we'd like to give you..."
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
Call me cynical, but it often seems that bills like this have some blatantly controversial measures in them which get all the attention and protests. The government then oh-so-graciously listens to the protests and waters them down a bit, meanwhile, down in the depths of the bill, a few lines have been added which do the *real* work of taking away our liberties...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018