an "educational" page about copyright crime.
Which, boys and girls, we all know funds terrorism and drug dealers and sex trafficking and child porn and...
6903 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Which, boys and girls, we all know funds terrorism and drug dealers and sex trafficking and child porn and...
I think most of us would be happier if that was one in one voice calls on commuter trains failed!
Shouty icon for the "I'm ON THE TRAIN" idiots...
... same as the old boss...
These words suggest that this Act was not intended to give any particular court or jurisdiction carte blanche to do anything they damn well please.
... to make motorcycling "safer", in order to qualify for a full and unrestricted motorcycle licence, you need to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops and take several tests, despite the fact that two thirds of accidents involving motorbikes and other vehicles in urban settings have been shown to be the fault of the other vehicle and very often a "Right of Way Violation" where, for example, a car has pulled out of a junction into the path of the bike.
For some reason, though, the idea of limiting the size of cars that new drivers can use, let alone requiring them to take more tests has been resisted by TPTB...
Good, but not quite as good as my friend who had some idiot try to make him back his camper van half a mile back down a lane because said idiot didn't want to reverse back to the passing place he'd just ignored.
My friend's response was "I've got a toilet and a bed in here, I'm not going anywhere..." :-)
Oh, but there has to be, because Testers' time is expensive and the more people you can shoe-horn into a day's worth of testing, the more cuts to the number of Testers you can make...
... I have had it on *good* authority (well, he thinks he's a good authority on the subject) that the only way to make us safe from terrorism is to make the haystack even bigger so we can get *more* information about everyone!
> you have had to close someone's account 7 times for "terrorism", at what point should that information should be passed along?
Yes, after all, you never know when someone is *actually* planning to blow up Robin Hood Airport...
"...to play a character with an engineered short life-span?"
> Did he have a short lifespan?
> Rachael didn't.
Yes she did, in all versions of the film which didn't have the Happy Ending forcibly bolted onto the end of the film by the Studio who thought the original ending was too bleak (probably according to their Focus Groups...)
Ridley Scott said a couple of years ago that he thought Deckard was a replicant.
"...I'm fairly sure they will be better than the story than will be knocked up for this film."
I tried reading "Blade Runner 2" by KW Jeter, which tried to square the circle between the original PKD book and the film and failed utterly.
If that is better than this film, stay *well* clear!!!
Scientists - "We've just landed a probe on a comet!"
Media - "Yeah, whatever. Have you seen the *shirt* that guy is wearing?!"
I'm sure it will produce something we can all Share and Enjoy!
> You and I will never know. That's why you and I have no say in what goes on with the data
Maybe not, but our elected representatives should know what is being done in our names and if *they* aren't convinced by the smoke and mirrors from the Security Services, we can be pretty certain that we should not simply bend over and take it.
"...the mass collection and storage of air passenger data helps in combating terrorism, as some claim"
Hear bloody hear!
At least *someone* gets it!
Pardon my cynicism, but exactly *what* is this supposed to prove?
They're not going to release their *actual* current state-of-the-snooping-art tools, are they? So what is this? Something that they may have used 20 years ago? Something that is now probably completely obsolete, I don't doubt.
This is spin, pure and simple, they're saying "Look, look at this! Be impressed! See, we're being open and honest and you should not pay any attention to the man behind the curtain...
Note the two uses of the word "could". Not "would", just "could".
Well so could have MI5 not deciding that the killers were not a "major threat" despite knowing about them since 2010, but, of course, anything that can be parlayed into an excuse to monitor and track us even more is just a really good thing as far as the Security Services are concerned...
> speed where it knows it can stop within half the distance it can see
All(? Many? Most?) of these "Ethical Dilemmas" come down to people who don't a) understand safe driving principles or b) understand how such principles would be programed into self-driving cars or c) both.
Perhaps they should be required to sign up to their local RoSPA/ IAM/ Bikesafe/ equivalent so they can actually *learn* about sensible road use before commenting.
There again, I think the same should go for most drivers and a lot of bikers too...
> gas is cheap, NOT
Try living over here in the UK where "gas" (ie petrol) currently costs around £1.20 (=$1.88) per litre and tell us again how "expensive" it is!
Count yourself lucky you're not an unemployed IT specialist, otherwise you could have been dumped on it as part of Workfare and been told "Do this for us for free or we sanction your benefits..."
The politicians whose rich mates are benefitting from this are not going to make *that* much of an effort to actually do anything about it because they'll get a "million quid a year for nominally working 24 hours" directorship promised to them...
Yebbut I don't think they'd want one of those machines in a short skirt and white panties...
... just look for who sold the stock short before the announcement and turned a tidy profit...
You forgot the comprehensive lightbulb installation risk assessment...
So does Grimms' Fairytales, but at least the authors admit that it was all made up...
> That I will be getting a lower price..
Not while they can sell you a "package" which contains all the channels *apart* from the "Premium" ones which make them the most money and which you have to pay through the nose for because they've spent huge amounts making sure that they have a monopoly on new films and sports and...
> kids are likely to stumble across pretty extreme stuff right off the bat
Fine, so what do we do? Forbid them from having computers? Ban them from seeing it? Try to block it?
Or maybe we need to *educate* children about these matters *before* they come across it and teach them that porn != sex and that there are things called "relationships" which are important with things like treating others with respect that need to be learned...
> They should be "locked in" until 18, end of..
Yes, that will solve the problem of child abuse because when they hit 18 they're no longer children, so it's not child abuse any more!
Abused adults? Oh, that's not an issue, they're adults now, they should have to deal with that themselves...
> Workfare was designed to give people work experience so they can come off the dole
Except when, as in the case mentioned, companies can lay off workers (who they would have had to pay) and then get those workers back *FOR FREE*, something has gone wrong.
That's why IDS and his mates (with the collusion of the Labour Party!) had to rush through a retro-active change in the law to stop them having to pay compensation to people who had been forced to work for nothing at Poundland and similar places.
If "workfare" actually ensured that people were paid the minimum wage (let alone a Living Wage") I wouldn't have a problem with it, but that isn't what IDS wants because it doesn't fit with the "benefits blame" culture he is fostering.
I have also been on the Dole but, fortunately, before such nonsense as this came about. Now I work and pay taxes, however I do not begrudge the proportion of that money that goes to help those who need the Safety Net of benefits.
As for "This is part of the government acting to ensure that you don't get it both ways at the taxpayers expense, which, as a taxpayer, has my full support" I bet you're one of the people who believe what they read in the Daily Mail or other such august purveyors of "the truth" and think that 27% of the total claimed in benefits is fraudulent, instead of the the actual figure which is around *ONE* percent
(And, of course, it's a tiny fraction of the money lost through tax evasion and avoidance by big corporations...)
We *have* modern day slavery in the UK, courtesy of Iain Duncan Smith. It's his "workfare" scheme.
Read this Guardian article (yes, it's from Tim Worstall's favorite newspaper!) about a guy who had worked for a Recycling company and got the minimum wage three years ago, but now the DWP has told him he's got to work there again, just to get his benefits.
In other words, he'd be doing the same job, they'd be getting the same labour, but he would *ONLY* be getting Benefits, not even the minimum wage!
He refused, so they said "Fine, you're turning down a job, we'll sanction your benefits".
"...means that all American-listed companies must ask each of their suppliers whether they use minerals from the region and if so, do they distinguish between conflict-free materials and not such. Even the SEC, the body charged with overseeing this process, estimates that this will cost $4bn."
So, Tim, exactly *how many* American-listed companies would this affect?
Well according to www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/dodd-frank-series/Documents/dodd-frank-and-conflict-minerals-rule-q4.pdf it will be "about 6,000" which averages out at around $666,666 (nice number) per company if spread evenly (yes, I know it wouldn't, but it puts it in a little more perspective, doesn't it?)
Given the sizes of the major players involved I'd guess they'd end up paying more than that, but I'd think this is likely to be an entry under "other expenses" on their books. The smaller companies with only a few suppliers would, of course, be paying an awful lot less anyway.
More importantly, however, is the fact that most people aren't even *aware* of the issue of Conflict Minerals, but if we start saying to chip manufacturers etc "hang on, maybe there's anothe way of sourcing these minerals *without* chucking money into a warzone", they may start to realise that there's a PR benefit too which, naturally, they will trumpet, thus encouraging other manufacturers to follow suit.
So is Dodd-Frank *really* such a bad thing? Or is it only because it affects your bottom line?
> Requiring this information for airline passengers is completely reasonable
Yes, because someone wanting to travel on an aeroplane means that they must be considered to be a potential terrorist...
> In other words, the elected representatives of the people, and the people themselves can butt out of the discussion
No, it means that the "elected representatives of the people" (well, more like "representatives of their Party leaders' wishes to the people") don't need to pass any more draconian knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something to appease the tabloid media" legislation when we *already* have laws which cover the situation.
For once it seems that a modicum of common sense is actually being applied.
No, in a word (not hyphenated) "Science".
Just because someone has "discovered" something and it *seems* to fit the hypothesis doesn't mean that the results are now beyond question and should be accepted as gospel (see what I did there?)
Newton's Theory of Gravity worked fine for ages until Einstein came along and said "Hang on, what about this situation...?"
Science is about asking questions even when the answer is "known".
... and when I read the Headline I thought that the BBC's popular science programme had actually come up with a nifty idea...
PS "most often referred to in sci-fi as deepsleep"? AFAIR it was usually "Cold Sleep" or "Cryonics".
"...the fear-mongering politicos: they cannot be allowed to get away with the absurd idea that they hold no responsibility for the behaviour of the security services who treat everyone as a potential terrorist suspect and then use this as an excuse to pass even more repressive laws which restrict our freedoms, rights and liberties!"
Ah, so jake's solution is to "man up" and ignore the demeaning comments, rape threats, derogatory remarks about your appearance/ sexuality/ anything else.
The idea of actually *teaching* school-boys (and girls, because, believe or not, they can be just as vicious) that bullying is not acceptable behaviour and won't be tolerated doesn't seem to have occurred to him.
It also doesn't seem to have occurred to him that, if they are allowed get away with such behaviour in their youth they most likely *won't* "grow up a trifle" but will keep doing it when they get older and become abusive bosses and parents and then their children will learn that this is, apparently, acceptable behaviour and so the sad and sorry cycle continues...
> then doctor-patient confidentiality is out of the window too
No, that's the Government trying to upload all of our medical records to an insecure system and give the details to their friends in the insurance industries etc...
> Has everyone forgotten the obvious lesson in Harrison's 'I always do what Teddy says'?
I'd not read that one before, so thanks!
Just because you *can* do all those things does not mean that you *should*.
Read the Highway Code paragraph 150:
* * * * *
There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. [...] If necessary find a safe place to stop.
Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR reg 104
* * * * *
Yes, but the point is that cyclists who do stupid things like calling or texting or riding through red lights are, in the vast majority of cases, only putting *themselves* at risk.
Drivers who engage in such behaviour will probably be ok because of seatbelts and airbags and crumple zones, but it is everyone else they put put at risk.
Oh come on! They've got all these cool toys, can you blame them for wanting to get them out and give them a go?
And *of course* we believe them.
After all, they're only doing it in our best interests, aren't they...?
> It's in the likely manifestos of three of the four major parties. It's in the Ukip one because I helped draft the last version and I put it there
* * * * *
Raising the tax allowance to £13,500 is a nice gesture and it’s going leave these people better off by around £50 per month but it isn’t nearly enough to cover the huge gap between pay and prices we pay. This particular policy was probably through up around the conference table as the cheapest, easiest way to attract minimum wage workers. ‘Tax cuts’ is a powerful peace of rhetoric to inspire those who need more money. In reality, it’s not going to make much of a difference. To be honest, it isn’t the minimum wage earns who will really benefit from this policy because what we always forget to take into account is how income based benefits, such as housing benefit or Tax Credits might change to reflect this extra money being available. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that minimum wage earners are going to be better off.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, of course, UKIP's Manifesto (well, unless Nigel's changed his mind again) saying they're going to raise the threshold of the 40% tax rate to £45,000 which will give the comfortably well-off a double tax cut.
And they're going to get rid of inheritance tax. How many people on minimum wage will that benefit?
> It's just that that Great Experiment of the 20th century has convinced me that lefty *methods* don't get us there while broadly capitalist and free market ones, with a tad of judicious intervention, do.
That would be the "Great Experiment" of the 21st Century known as Quantitative Easing, perhaps? The £375 *billion* which has been thrown into the financial markets whilst the Tories have been borrowing massively and created more debt than ever? Hmm...
> For instance you say rich people can invest their money, taking it out of supply. Have you not thought about where that money is put?
Yes, and so have the people at Positive Money who point out the fact that for the banks to create money, ie put it into the economy via loans, mortgages etc, they have to create *debt* which leads to such things as unaffordable housing and boom-and-bust economics.
It seems that Parliament is finally starting to catch up with this idea as they are debating money creation for the first time in 170 years
It's a shame that TW starts off by saying "that is the only part of trickle-down economics that undoubtedly and provably works" and then goes off to attack Zoe Williams instead of dealing with the elephant in the room that the majority of so-called Trickle Down economics *doesn't* work.
Perhaps he could now write an article addressing the principle of Marginal Propensity to Consume, ie why tax breaks (including raising the income tax threshold) mean that the less well-off still spend pretty much all of their income on necessities and maybe the occasional luxury, whilst the more well-off already have enough income to cover their needs, so can afford to save and invest most of the extra money they get, making it grow even more, but taking it out of supply.
The idea is that (like a champagne fountain) you put more in at the top and it trickles down to the bottom. The actual result is that the glass at the top just gets bigger and bigger, so virtually nothing trickles down.
Of course that wouldn't make for a good excuse to bash the lefty Guardian, would it?
Or do you only have a licence to display it on a book you've downloaded...?
Is WalterAlter a new challenger for amanfrommars1?!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017