... the Porn Industry will be leading the market again...!
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... tell them to shove it where the sun doesn't shine! (Or, rather, don't even bother to start engaging with them)
Penalty Charge Notices are legally enforceable, Parking Charge Notices, even when tricked up to *look like* they are official fines are nothing more than a scam designed to make you think they are legitimate.
See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets for more details.
Jolly Roger Icon because these scammers are a bunch of pirates...
I'll answer that as soon as you tell me on what scale this is any form of news at all.
Despite the best efforts of some sub-editor to make this sound exciting ("quell", "furious", "barney", "gatecrash" and even "tense-stand off"!), this is a complete non-story and again I point out that had it not been for the "geeks in funny costumes" aspect it most likely would never have seen the light of day.
This story was on the BBC news site yesterday and it's a total storm-in-a-teacup piece of nonsense.
Would it have got any coverage if it was one of the many incidents such as in pubs where a couple of voices get raised and the Police come along and say "ok, just calm down" and nothing more comes of it? No, probaly not, but because it's "oh look, let's laugh at the geeks who dress up in the funny outfits", suddenly it's worth a few column inches.
If you write to your MP or a group of you organise a petition or other such activities, you are *lobbying*! The only difference is the matter of scale.
Now, yes, I agree that nobody, especially corporate lobbyists should pay for expensive dinners or foreign trips or offer any other sort of freebies to influence MPs who are supposed to represent the views of *us*, the electorate, but lobbying, per se, is not and should not be illegal.
Am I supposed to be impressed by more of your pontification? Let alone your arguments ad hominem?
You accuse me of confusion, but that confusion only exists because of the completely erroneous assumptions you make all through your diatribe, assigning motivations and beliefs to me that I do not hold and have never held.
You claim I fail to recognise the difference between correlation and causation, yet a look back through my posts in El Reg would reveal that this something which I have often commented upon, so how can I get it right all those times, yet suddenly get it wrong now? Or perhaps the error is not mine.
Equally, the assumption of "an ideal human breeding habit" is yours, not mine. I have not said, nor would I that this is "ideal", merely that it is better than the situation that exists where poor education standards are shown to correlate with higher birth rates.
And, yes, I most certainly do, with entire validity, accuse you of using Straw Man arguments. Perhaps you would care to now actually address the points I make, rather than the ones you wish to think I have made?
Or would you prefer to simply attempt to denigrate my intelligence whilst actually revealing your own failings in this area? If so, I'll leave the last word to you.
I almost missed your remarks to me since they were below the "expand comment" and it was only that I happened to spot my surname (why only my surname "Em"?) that caused me to read the rest of your post after a lot of tedious and irrelevant pontification about the use of English.
In any case, in response to your remark "You imply causation where none is known to exist", a simple search on the "relationship between education and birth rate" would have shown you that causation is most certainly known to exist, for instance: "A women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment."
(There are plenty more references below that one, too.)
As for your claim that I am a eugenecist of *any* type, let alone that of RonWheeler, you show yourself to be equally lacking in knowledge on this subject.
Eugenics, from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), stems from a desire to "improve" the human race either by weeding out the "unfit" or encouraging the "best" to reproduce, neither of which I have supported, do support or ever will support.
Reducing the birth rate by improving education has *nothing* to do with Eugenics and if you think that increased education is only available to affluent societies or that it is some how "dis-privilegeing" societies you simply demonstrate even more ignorance of the subjects under discussion.
Ironically it was RonWheeler who accused *me* of using Straw Man arguments...
"No I wasn't. Go build another straw man."
A Straw Man argument involves exaggerating or misrepresenting someone else's argument. Since your entire argument so far appears to be "start treating breeders like the ignorant selfish people that they are" without any more details, there isn't anything there *to* misrepresent other than a vague statement, hence why I expressed an opinion about what *appears* to be your position.
If you would actually care to clarify your statement instead of just accusing others of "ignoring facts", it might help me to counter it.
Most people don't know and, if you told them, would wish you hadn't told them!
So why this assumption that, as happens with some countries in Asia etc, we'd actually be eating the insects with legs and wings and everything else intact?
Why not just grow them, farm them, then mince and pulp them before re-constituing them in a more palatable and pleasing-to-the-eye form, so it's no longer "a bug", but simply another form of protein?
"The overpopulation problem doesn't exist".
Of course it does, but you appear to be offering the solution of eliminating the breeders by some form or other instead of *educating* people which history has shown to be an effective way to be the way to reduce reproduction rates.
.... One palm on centre of chest, other above it, make rapid pressing motions: Find me a hospital drama.
Finger rotated in a cirdle next to temple: I want to watch a programme like Jackass or Mr T's Craziest Fools
Finger inserted into mouth, head bowed forward: I want to watch X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent or Big Brother
PS [Smug Mode]Thanks for the mention :-) [/Smug Mode]
PC is simply mindless avoidance of "offensive" terms or, at least, in the view of some idiot, words which could conceivably cause offence to someone of a particular racial/ religious/ whatever group, and usually done without even *asking* people from that group whether or not they'd be offended.
I see nothing in this that has anything to do with PC.
If you are doing something in a public space you have *no* right to expectation of privacy!
However I do agree that there should be stronger penalties applied to people using any "distracting technology" whilst in control of a vehicle. If you do something stupid which hurts you, that's your problem. If it hurts someone else, that's a legal problem.
... here's a pic of John xxxxxx pi$$ing up against a wall. Oh and here's Jenny yyyyy throwing up into a rubbish bin after getting drunk.
And here's a picture of Terry zzzz and Andy aaaaaaa caught comparing the sizes of their cocks...
So when you said you wanted References for them, which company did you say you worked for?
No, I can't see anything that could go wrong with this.
Or you can turn off the ads with NoScript and Adblock Plus.
And if it's something his system, it's something with mine as well (running Firefox) because when I first try going into it and try to click on anything it's "oops, no, not going to do anything yet, still loading lots of crap, wait five seconds and then try again and maybe the whole page will have loaded..."
Do I need to produce ID to travel in a taxi? No.
Do I have to pay for my train ticket with a card (or produce a card to get permission to buy one)? No.
Do I have to purchase a non-anonymous Oyster Card to travel in London? No.
I *can* do these, if I wish, but that's my *choice*, it's not an obligation.
You are not required to carry a passport or National Insurance card simply to prove that you have the right to walk down the street.
It has long been a principle of English Common Law that you have the right to "Go about your lawful business without let or hindrence" ("let" meaning needing permission).
ID cards could (and very probably would) be used to infringe this right.
Damnit, I know i've seen a programme featuring the experiment you mention, but I *cannot* find a reference for it!
IIRC it's an experiment in the diffusion of liquids using two 10' long (or some such size) vertical tubes, I think the top one had copper sulphate in and the bottom one was water. The experiment is to see how long it will take before both tubes are an identlcal colour and it had been running since the 19th century.
My recollection was that it was in a chemistry lab at Oxford or Cambridge but my google-fu has let me down :-(
Anyone else remember this?
"Quite seriously, if they aren't charging, is it reasonable to expect much in the way of testing (or development, or anything, really)?"
I would ask "Are you serious?" but you appear to be...!
If someone is offering a product which is designed to protect your computer from software which may damage it, but which has been inadequately tested and so *causes* damage to your system, then they cannot simply disclaim liability for that failure by saying "well, it was free, so people shouldn't expect it to work properly"!
More importantly, the idea of the "free product" is to get people to sign up for the paid product, so making such a monumental cock-up as this is liable to damage confidence in your business and mean they go to another, more reliable, supplier.
"I'd be negotiating the rights properly rather than just sending it in free."
The problem is that most people don't realise that, by sending stuff into the BBC, they're effectively giving it to them for free in perpetuity, let alone have any idea *how* to negotiate the rights properly.
Of course it's not in the BBC's interests to tell them about this...
Unless (for reasons best known to itself) the regulator decides that the highest bidder has bid *too* high, won't be able to keep up their payments and declares the second highest bidder the winner!
This happened way back in 1990 when TVS (who held the ITV franchise for the south of England) massively outbid the competition but the ITC decided that they wouldn't be able to pay that amount and gave it to Meridian!
"A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wave bands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive--you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure, of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same program."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019