"Trustwave"...
... run their website (that is responsible for ensuring people who take credit cards over the internet are PCIDSS complaint) using that well known secure piece of software, Flash...
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Just because you dress it up in big words doesn't meant that you're not (either intentionally or through ignorance) agreeing with the Daily Mail's default "Hang them and flog them" position of demanding harsh sentences because "that's the only way they'll learn their lesson and not do it again"
And they would, of course, also agree with you that "it is not the place of a business or organisation that has been on the wrong end of this kind of offensive behaviour to plea", but at the same time, they would no doubt consider that "victim impact statements" should be taken into consideration by the courts when determining the severity of the sentence.
So five downvotes to my post pointing out that a cyclist or motorcyclist doesn't have to put a foot down, but nobody has come up with anything to contradict that, apart from Steve Knox who asserts that "balancing a bicycle without rolling forward or backward is practically impossible" leading me to the conclusion that he doesn't ride a bicycle or motorcycle like myself and has never seen someone do (or done) exactly this.
To quote a document from the Insitute of Advanced Motorists:
"26. Misconception: At STOP lines the rider must place at least one foot onto
the road surface.
"There is no specific requirement for the rider to do so. The essential requirement is that a rider’s machine must come to a complete STOP."
I recommend that the downvoters take some Advanced Training (or they can just downvote me again to be petty...)
> Yup. STOP means STOP - worldwide As a cyclist that means "put your foot on the ground" - if you play that stupid game of wobbling and not quite stopping you can be ticketed
Really? I'd like to know where he got that idea from because the only requirement in the Road Traffic Act is that the vehicle comes to a complete stop before proceeding (ie the wheels stop rotating). There is nothing that says a cyclist or motorcyclist has to put a foot down.
"...are not hit with shock bills through no fault of their own."
Err, excuse me, but exactly *what* relevance does how hard you work (or whether you're working or not) have to this?
Is she saying that if you're not (according to her) "hard working" that you have less entitlement to protection perchance???
... they ban searching for the websites...
... then they ban searching for workarounds...
... then they ban any search engines which won't comply with the ban...
... then all search terms have to be approved by a government flunky (your search results will be available in the next three days...)
"could the arguement not be made that sexually graphic depicitions of minors in such media risks normallising the treatment of children as sexual objects?"
Sure, you can make that argument. Just like you can argue that GTA normalises beating people up and stealing their cars for fun...
> In my opinion, the British came to a big fork in the road where reality took a left but they hung a sharp right.
And David Cameron is now going even *further* to the Right because he wants to criminalise "Rape" Porn so that *anything* which appears to be non-consensual (even if it's simulated and acted) could get you up to three years in jail!
Bravo, Call Me David, another Thought Crime for the statute books!
Whilst the story of Yvette Cloette has been blown out of all proportion, there was, much more recently, the case of Bijan Ebrahimi a mentally disabled man who was falsely accused of being a paedophile after taking pictures of local youths who had been destroying his flowers who was kicked unconscious and then burned to death!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/bijan-ebrahimi-burned-to-death-pedophilia_n_4209497.html
> any hypocrisy they can find and reveal.
Given that our elected politicians seem to be able to successfully engage in mind-blowing hypocrisy and yet, often, still survive in office, I doubt any such campaign by the NSA would have much effect on the "true believers"!
> Board games used to be a family pursuit, until it was universally realised that the monkier was simply a mis-spelling of "bored".
That might have been true in the days when all the board games that were generally available were Monopoly, Cluedo, Trivial Pursuit and the like which basically just involved rolling dice and moving a counter around a track.
These days there are games like Carcassonne, Alhambra, Settlers of Catan (now with a Star Trek themed variant!), Ticket to Ride, Discworld - Ankh Morpork, Stone Age and many more which are playable by the whole family and which are a lot more interesting and entertaining than the old Monopoly etc.
Go on to Board Game Geek, find a local gaming group or shop (or buy online) and try a few. You will discover that there's more to gaming than mashing buttons...
With the Right of Freedom of Expression comes the Responsibility to use it appropriately.
Would you use the same language you use in the company of your peers in front of your parents/ grandparents/ in a church/ on television/ in front of other people's children and, if someone objects, smugly claim that you're exercising your Right of Freedom of Expression?
> To them, the big barrier is getting weapons onboard, for which the "theatre" is very effective in stopping.
Obligatory video clip of Adam Savage relating how he walked through airport security carrying two 12" long industrial razor blades http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4
Bravo, TSA!
I'd love to see a double-blind test where two people take turns to sit next to you, one smoking an e-cig and the other a non-nicotine containing water vapour emitter and see if you can actually tell the difference or whether it's actually just all in your head.
A point that I *do* remember is that I and my friends used to meet in a pub and even though we sat in the "non-smoking" area, I would always leave there with my clothes *reeking* of cigarette smoke. Now, with e-cigs, there's no such problem and also no "excuse me, just got to nip out for a fag..." hassles.
If people want to indulge in this sort of thing and it's not affecting me, why should they not be allowed to do it?
Erm, excuse me, but during a dive in the Mediterranean, Jacques Cousteau and his crew found a *two thousand* year old amphora of wine that was intact. Thinking there would be others, they drank it (and found it tasted terrible!)
IIRC, however, they never found another one...
> In most of Europe, as far as I am aware, it is strictly "who initiates the call, pays for it."
In the UK there are "Reverse Billing" systems (generally for adult services) whereby you text a number and receive a certain number of texts back which can be charged up to £1.50 each IIRC. But it's not somethng that's forced on you, you have to opt in by texting them in the first place and you can opt out at any time.
> at least they have a quiet coach on long runs
And we all know that *nobody* ignores the signs saying "don't use mobiles" on those. And the Guard is *always* walking through the train, so if they find someone using a mobile they tell them to stop and move and....
... Doesn't he know that spamming everyone with crap is *our* job!
Of course maybe if we changed it so that users had the choice of whether a page can get access to their friends list, likes and shoe size rather than just saying "if you want to look at this, you've got to give us access to all your data..."
Nah, that's crazy talk.