@jake - Re: That's nice.
I bet you told Wilbur and Orville that they were wasting their time too...
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I bet you told Wilbur and Orville that they were wasting their time too...
Does your scanner have an attachment to allow you to scan Slides? If so, you can cut the negatives off the disc and then create a "frame" to hold them in the slide attachment.
I think another Irony Detector has just exploded...
Oh dear, Matt, and you were doing *SO* well, right up until the last paragraph where you had to get in a dig at *someone* on the Left...
ITYM: "even the NSA carefully didn't look carefully at what the limits were because they wanted plausible deniability"
It's just a shame that all this outpouring of love and grief for this man comes *after* his death.
How many lives could have been saved if people who suffered from depression could have known how many people really care for them?
We need better support for these people.
RIP Robin Williams.
That's *OUR* job!!
... London is full of low-life scum who do nothing, make nothing, produce nothing, but just profit by taking something from one person and sell it on to someone else and congratulate themselves on how clever they are being.
Oh, and as well as the politicians and money men and stock brokers and bankers, there are thieves too.
Eh, Grommit, lad...
... someone's copying us!
"No country in the world allows dissemination of information of rumors, violence, cheating, sex and terrorism..."
... by anyone else apart from the Government, because that's *their* job!
> She got the classic withdrawal symptoms ... shakes, sweats, angry, name it ...
AKA "Stroppy Teenager Syndrome"...
"... but we don't give a damn because we want to ensure that you don't have a choice of products, so you can only use ours..."
> Am I bad?
If it's on the same computer/ on the same hard drive/ in My Documents/ in the same folder* as other porn (*delete depending on how paranoid you feel) and the Police reckon they can argue that you have those images "for the purposes of sexual arousal", then, yes.
> In fact (and I'd need to have a proper search for this sometime) there was a loose inverse correlation between access to porn and incidences of sexual violence.
Check out the work of Professor Milton Diamond of the University of Hawai'i
> But then again, when did politicians ever use facts to decide laws?
This was the last Labour regime who gave us "Policy Based Evidence Making". Unfortunately we're liable to get the same bunch of moralising clowns back into power after the next election :-(
> Or are you advocating that people who actually fall asleep on the wheel should carry on driving at all cost untill they find a service area (or die trying?).
Now you've gone from a False Dilemma to a Straw Man argument...
No, of course I am not advocating that. I'm advocating *GET OFF THE BLOODY MOTORWAY IF YOU'RE TIRED AND FIND SOMEWHERE SAFE AND LEGAL TO STOP AND NAP!"
Servicer area, next junction whatever, just don't drive tired.
I suggest you look up the fallacy of the False Dichotomy.
Sleeping when driving is stupid and illegal.
Sleeping on the hard shoulder is also stupid and illegal.
Sleeping at a service area is sensible and not illegal (even though officious private parking companies may try to fine you for doing it!)
If someone is feeling sleepy, they should pull off at the next junction or service area and stop and get some sleep.
Doing it on the Hard Shoulder is not only illegal, but stupid because if another vehicle, let alone an artic happens to drift across...
> the right lane (the fast one)
You mean the Overtaking Lane?
Just as motorways have *two* overtaking lanes, the basic rule of the road being "Keep left unless overtaking" which is why idiots shouldn't hog the middle lane when they can move to the left hand lane...
Let me tell you about my mother...
... BANG! BANG!
... have generally agreed with the ideas that people don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to the climate...
... on a Highway to Hell...
> Freedom fighters attack only military targets, terroists attack civilians. It's extremely clear cut.
Wow! I wish I lived in your lovely black and white world where things are so clear cut.
Still, you must be right, after all, no innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israel in the last week or two, have they?
And all those people who lived in Dresden must have been in the German military because it would have been terrorism to firebomb a city full of civilians.
And there's no such thing as Collateral Damage.
... but kudos for the Wargames reference :-)
Shall we play a game?
> Sounds like a job for Slartibartfast.....
Marvin: Did it have... oceans?
Arthur: Oh yes, great wide rolling blue oceans.
Marvin: Can't abide oceans...
There's got to be a difference between "We think Joe Bloggs is a criminal, we have this evidence and we want to look at his e-mails" and "We think Company X is doing something wrong, so we want to look at *ALL* the e-mails written by anyone in that company and *ALL* the data they have stored and..."
Hey Everyone - Jake says it's ok and we don't need to worry!
Isn't it great to have his expert opinion on this subject? (I wonder when he found time to do his PhD in Climatology along with all the other things he's an expert on...?)
... "Won't Someone Think of the PaedoTerrorists" arguments from those who think that the only way to keep us "safe" is for us to be obedient sheeple and not worry about the Government and Security Services from trying to spy on everything we do and everything we say and find out everyone we talk to and monitor everything we read "Just in Case" we might do something bad at some point.
It's not as if there's any risk of False Positives or mis-reading of the data or mistakes being made that result in innocent people being arrested, let alone charged because they have a name similar to someone else's or they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of course we shouldn't worry about this. Of course it's not a violation of our Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Of course it doesn't do us any harm because obviously we're not important enough for them to actually pay any attention to, so it's ok to let them keep doing it. And anyway, we don't have anything do hide, do we, so we have nothing to fear...
Remember we get the *best* of US Television over here. If you search through enough dross you may find a few nuggest of gold...
Can I suggest that you put the name of the person you're responding to in the title of your comments as the El Reg forums do not do threading so it's difficult to know who the reply is directed at.
PS FYI I agree with a lot of your points :-)
> Australia has a couple of humdingers where people have been prosecuted for possessing child porn cartoons, which is the very definition of a victimless crime.
Even better, at least a couple of them were for possession of pictures of Bart and Lisa Simpson! See this article from El Reg in 2010
Oh, BTW, whilst using google to look up that link, the first result that came up is an Ad from Google "Warning - Child abuse imagery is illegal"! Probably got myself added to another watch list...
> God, I wish The Register had some kind of ignore list so I didn't have to come across you again - it's getting kind of tedious.
Yes, I've noticed that some people on here don't like it when people actually *question* their viewpoints and point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.
The witch burnings are over there on the Daily Mail pages --->
Oh and another PS: See this article: "Today's Facebook fury: Coppertone-like baby pic ban baffles US mom" from El Reg just last week.
I'm sure that that ban resulted from the actions of "reasonable" people too...
The word "reasonably" would laughable in this context if it wasn't such a fraught subject, because it is blatantly obvious that this is a subject about which it is virtually *impossible* to hold a "reasonable" discussion of!
The average man in the street/ on the Clapham Omnibus etc has had their viewpoint of the subject so skewed by the witch-burning tabloids and the like that even nearly a decade ago we had the nonsense of Julia Somerville being questioned by the Police over nude photos of her daughter in the bath
Now with the whole Jimmy Saville/ Rolf Harris/ whoever case, do you *really* think that things have or will change at all? The "reasonable" person in the street will see "naked child - child porn".
And don't forget that on the COPINE Scale even images that show "Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness" are can be rated as Class 1 Child Pornography if someone else considers that they are "inappropriately" connected with other images.
> You're highly unlikely to be prosecuted for the possession of anime, or a book for grown-ups with words instead of pictures.
"Highly unlikely" (in your opinion) != "Not going to happen" and it doesn't even matter if you're *not* prosecuted for it because if someone is even *arrested* on suspicion, that's enough for some people who will think "there's no smoke without fire" and will ostracise them, fire them, ruin their lives and their careers...
That is the sad state of affairs that the "Won't Someone Think of the Children" mentality has got us into.
EDIT - ADDENDUM
Oh, PS, I've just seen the following from you...
> Judging by the downvoting of posts condemning child porn, it would indeed seem like there are more than a few deviants on here who like that kind of thing.
So much for "reasonable"! They disagree with your points, therefore they're into child porn...
I rest my case.
> Just so I'm clear - you're ok with pornographic images of children as long as they're not in photographic format?
No, and please don't try to use Straw Man arguments like that on me, I get enough of them from a certain other poster...
Since you seem to be at least passingly familiar with the law you will also know that it is (as I alluded to in my post) already an offence to have drawn images which were eg traced from a photograph and I don't have a problem with that, because that was actually abuse of a child.
What I *do* have a problem with is laws criminalising something based on someone's completely subjective impression of what a fictitious image looks like or, indeed, if some in government get their way, a fictional *description*, which could end up with possession Nabakov's Lolita being a criminal offence!
That is going into the realms of Thought Crime.
> I believe the line of thinking is that if you "just" look at images of child abuse, you're enabling the creator of the content - a child has to be abused for the image to be created.
Yes, of course, that is why it is now a crime to possess images such as those in the Japanese Manga and Anime "Big Eyes, Small Mouth" style which are *drawings* that are completely fictitious, that were *never* based on photographs or video of actual acts, but, none the less, will get you arrested because the imaginary participants *look* like children to Western eyes and that's enough for the Tabloid reading public to demand that "Something Must Be Done!" and our Governments are entirely happy to oblige them.
> if the lack of advertising (which is pretty much what it is) for child abuse means that one less child is molested by someone that's a win in my book.
Right, because children were never abused *before* the advent of the internet or before the invention of photography or before...
The fact still remains that most abuse is perpetrated by a close family member or someone who is known to the child and that has and will still happen whether there are pictures out there or not.
Unfortunately, meanwhile, we get people trotting out the "if XYZ can stop one child fewer from being molested it's a good thing" argument which is then used as a justification by TPTB for more laws and more censorship and Default-on blocking software with secret lists of "unacceptable" websites all based on the cry of "Won't Someone Think of the Children!"
... A certain (ahem) "accident" that Howard Wolowitz suffered comes (painfully!) to mind..
> RE: Evil Auditor on getting mug shots of 'innocent' people.
> Every time I've had my picture taking for :
The point is that those images are suppose (in this country at least) to *only* be used for a specified purpose, not a general CCTV surveillance dragnet.
But it's enough to get you arrested and for some people that's suffienciet for them to assume that you must be guilty of *something*, followed by your job, career, reputation or family life disappearing up the Swanee...
... False Positive keep coming to mind...?
(Big Brother because there's no Kafka icon)
The creepy part is
not this facial recognition system and that they keep mug shots of innocent people.
When I got my new Virgin Broadband/ WiFi router the guy from Virgin told me "Don't change the default password because if you forget it and something goes wrong we won't be able to help you fix it and you'll have to call out an engineer or get a replacement..."
... sorry, who are you? Bing? Nope, never heard of you...
See, it works!!!
My mother was in hospital recently and visitors were supposed not to be allowed into wards during meal times.
So, due to various circumstances, I arrive late and think "bugger, they won't let me in", but, at that moment, there's an old guy having a bit of difficulty getting his wheelchair out of the lift.
"Want a hand, mate?"
"Tell you what, I'll just push you into the ward, how about that?"
Nurse sees person pushing patient in wheelchair, lets us in...
(Ok, so it's not High Security, but still :-) )
... at least the Lawyers didn't get the $400m and leave everyone else with the rest...
If you do the maths, you'll find that if you can accelerate at 1g for a year, you're going to end up travelling pretty damn close to the speed of light anyway, so all we need is a better form of Drive.
Nice suggestion, but on looking at the details...
Android 4.3 ONLY | NO ROOT | NO ADS
Updated - November 8, 2013
"So, what can we get people to ingest so we can detect this?"
"Dunno, fancy another pint?"
"Well, actually I could murder a curry right now..."
Ok, so how much did a certain soft drink company pay for *that* bit of product placement?!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018