"robotic justice from America to the world"
Many a true word is spoken in jest...
... Fuck Yeah!
6903 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Many a true word is spoken in jest...
... Fuck Yeah!
... they can always raise money for their next project by mining Bitcoins...
> ... say stuff it, no more tax for you!
Well the Amazons and Googles and Vodafones et al of this world don't need to say that, because they already have cozy deals with the taxman...
And how many of those are actually Original Inventive steps and not covered by Prior Art or obvious to anyone working in the industry???
All I can say is...
... My name is Mr Pot.
I'd suggest the Star Trek Red Alert siren, but if someone uses that as their ringtone it could cause all sorts of panic...
What about people with signs on their backs saying "How am I walking? Phone..."
... some people are trying to cover their own backsides before the court cases start...
So, as the Dutch realised a long time ago, the solution is to *EDUCATE* not to *LEGISLATE*!
Sex Education for Dutch children starts in primary school and results in much lower levels of teenage pregnancy and rape than countries such as the UK.
Of course the fact is that the Tabloids would explode with apoplexy were any UK government suggest such a thing here since teaching children about sex is obviously a Bad Thing and will only make them want to do it more...
You missed out "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"...
'open access to information is “the birthright of every person on this planet”'
Especially if you are the NSA.
If you are forced to self-censor because Big Brother wants to look at everything you do, then you are still being censored and repressed, just in a different way.
> VAT is not on food yet
ITYM "Not on *all* food yet" :-(
> should the goods and services that a company produces not be taxable?
Originally the idea of VAT was that it would be a "luxury" tax. Unfortunately it's now become a tax added to virtually everything and which affects everyone, rich or poor. However, as with my example above, the poor end up paying a bigger proportion of their income on VAT.
Ah, the classic "I'm alright Jack" argument...
Let me put it another way. Imagine we all had to move a pile of bricks from one place to another by hand. Now imagine that I am six feet tall, well muscled, regularly go to the gym, am well fed etc whereas you are 5 feet tall, not in the best of health and poorly nourished.
Which is better: For the stronger person to carry more bricks or for him to say "No, since you can only carry two bricks, it's fair and just for me to only carry two bricks as well"? Should the burden be placed on those best capable of carrying it or distributed equally so that the stronger and the weaker carry the same amount?
(There's a certain irony that many on the Right Wing of politics are fundamentally opposed to equality, apart from when it benefits them...)
PS And I think you need to look up what a Straw Man argument is, because that other post was certainly not one.
> "The poor do the most consuming? What? How do these poor people afford to consume more than the rich?
You are mistaking the *absolute* amount spent for the *proportional* amount spent.
To pick some simple figures, if you and I both have monthly expenses of £1500, but you earn £1500 a month and I earn £3000 a month, you are consuming 100% of your income whereas I am only consuming 50% of mine and hence have money over to save and invest.
This is why consumption taxes like VAT are neither moral nor productive, but are, instead, regressive and unfair because everyone gets taxed at the same rate, but the poorest have to pay a bigger proportion of their income and are thus left with less left over.
It's "a maker of exoskeleton suits” so I was thinking more of the Caterpillar P-5000 Powered Work Loader that Ripley drove in Aliens.
... how much funding will be withdrawn and how does that compare to the commercial value of the data which could be extracted...?
... in the UK you just get threatened with jail for refusing to reveal your password on demand because obviously you are a paedoterrerist...
... the people who use Flash to run their website...
... tell us another!
Parliament sees its job as passing the laws and then leaving it to the Courts to decide the actual details.
... that laws passed to protect the Music Industry are a good start, so we need more of them.
See icon for details.
Damn, I was about to call my broker...
"...and other uses may be found for the technology."
See icon for details, fleshy ones!
Well isn't it good that I'm still using Word 97...
... Sorry, unable to give a damn.
Not forgetting the idiots yakking on their mobile phones and blocking the aisles whilst ignoring the fact that people want to get past them...
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
As most programers have known for decades...
" and it remodels to support areas of stress."
Sounds like the Chairdogs from Frank Herbert's "Heretics of Dune"
"I hate it when they try to cuddle me" - Reverend Mother Odrade.
> can anyone think of another occurence of a german starting a political party with a specific agenda and ending holding the balance of power?
Erm, was his name Godwin...?!
> watch this fat f**ker try to buy his way out of his extradition with political favour.
You mean as opposed to US Big Media trying to buy his extradition with political influence over a foreign country's judicial system?
This evening, having just got back from holiday, I was catching up on El Reg when Virgin Media decided to go tits up for half an hour and I kept getting messages that Firefox was unable to resolve the address.
After about 30 minutes of this I tried phoning their helpline only to get told that it might take them 5 mintues to answer my call.
Fortunately at this point it started working again, but such events are not uncommon with VM.
Well, as long as it wasn't night soil...
Icon because (oh work it out yourself!)
Better than "Inconstant Moon" by Larry Niven that I was thinking of...
"Zero Tolerance" == "Zero Sense"
... will it have the attendant dancing figures?
(And willl pressing a button whilst they're dancing trigger a hook to drag them off? ;-) )
... how long it will take for that "unlimited" to be redefined as "unlimited until you actually try to start downloading stuff..."?
No, it's not cricket, it's irony.
... whether the British Government is copying the Chinese Government or vice versa...
... Got any naked pictures of your girlfriend? No?
Want to buy some...?
They need to ask...
DUCK DODGERS in the 24th and a half CENTURY!
Sounds like Salvage 1...
Being delivered by Universe Parcel Services...?
Should we expect a "Sorry you were out when we tried to deliver your item" message soon?
You mean someone lost the Post-It where they wrote the password down...?
And at £130, the Moto-G is £170 cheaper than the X, especially if you get an Ovivo Sim for £20 and get 300 minutes, 300 texts and 500MB *every month* for nada!
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
These are the people who gave us the Dangerous Pictures Act. Who wanted the National DNA Database. Who wanted us all to have ID cards. Who introduced the RIP Act which was supposed to protect us against terrorists, not to spy on people who might be sending their kids to the wrong school, etc etc etc.
And NOW they expect us to TRUST THEM?
I think it is you who does not understand:
> If you did not put the images on your server and were not aware that they were there could the prosecution prove that you "possessed" the images?
Quoting from the Criminal Justice Act 1988:
* * * * *
160 Possession of indecent photograph of child
(1) Subject to section 160A it is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child in his possession.
(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a)that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession; or
(b) that he had not himself seen the photograph or pseudo-photograph and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be indecent
* * * * *
Note where it says "It is a defence for him to prove" ie a person is *assumed* to be guilty *unless* they can prove that they didn't know the images were there and they hadn't seen them!
Bids and offers of Directorships to the Tory Party HQ...
> thought child pornography was always a crime to posses, no matter how you received it
Sexual Offences Act 2003:
* * * * *
46 Criminal proceedings, investigations etc.
(1)After section 1A of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) insert—
“1BException for criminal proceedings, investigations etc.
(1)In proceedings for an offence under section 1(1)(a) of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, the defendant is not guilty of the offence if he proves that—
(a)it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for the purposes of criminal proceedings, in any part of the world,
(b)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of the Security Service, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service, or
(c)at the time of the offence charged he was a member of GCHQ, and it was necessary for him to make the photograph or pseudo-photograph for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ.
* * * * *
Of course the "necessity" here is the prevention of terrerism...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017