You'd prefer some ridiculously contrived acronym?
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Whilst Moon was interesting to begin with and had excellent visuals (apart from people moving like they were in 1g when they were on the moon in 1/6th of a g!), IMO it explained itself too quickly and then ended in a fairly commonplace manner after a potentially good start.
[Possible spoilers in the next couple of paragraphs...]
I felt there could have been a lot more done with the "paranoia" aspect of "is this real or not" scenario and GERTY being helpful by giving Bell the password struck me as a convenient plot device which, given that it wouldn't answer his questions previously, didn't seem credible.
Also one thing that I didn't follow was that (presumably) the girl he hallucinates at the start is supposed to be the one who is now 15, but how did he know what she looked like as he wouldn't have had memories of her?
A nice idea, but flawed execution.
Ah, I recall those warnings from when I was at school in the 1970s and the Music Industry was decrying the creation of the compact cassette and the tape-to-tape recorder which let you get a copy of the album your mate bought.
So if all *that* piracy was "Killing Music", how come the same people and the same industry were whining about the same thing when the CD burner came along and then the DVD burner and now Torrent sites?
Frankly if this alleged 5% is such a threat to the profitability of their industry (and not just their bonuses), they really need to look at their business models a bit more closely.
Or they could just stop gouging their customers for stupidly (and unjustifiably) high prices for crap content laden with DRM and piracy warnings and offer a decent product at a reasonable price.
... some people rather missed the point of my last comment.
Lobbying is *ANYONE* being able to have a say on what their government does, be it by contacting their MP, getting up a petition or whatever.
If as "Obviously!" wanted, *all* such lobbying was banned, we would have an even less representative government than we do now!
... in a charity shop for a quid last year and it's fun to just spend an evening building up Grahamville (hell, if Sheldon can have Sheldonopolis...!) and seeing, for instance, how much you can boost property values in an area by getting rid of noisome neighbours and building lots of parks and planting trees :-)
Perhaps because people don't *want* to work all day and all night? Perhaps because the stores can't afford to employ the extra staff and pay for the extra lighting and heating that opening late would involve?
Perhaps people have *lives* they want to enjoy...
I've just read all the way through the comments and you seem to be the *only* person who's mentioned Tetris!!
A brilliantly simple but incredibly addictive game with nice touches like the little Russian figures in the windows who would applaud you when you completed a level.
They'd also do a little victory dance, but if you hit a button, a hook would come out from the side and snag them around the neck and drag them off! (If you timed it right, they'd duck it the first time, but get caught the second time :-) )
When I'm reading on a screen (eg El Reg!) I use the scroll wheel so the text I'm actually looking at is in the section between 1/3rd and 2/3rds the way down the screen because that is most comfortable for me.
Something like this would just annoy the hell out of me and would be switched off PDQ.
On another forum I use there's someone from Denmark (I think) who posted a pic of a system they use.
You've got a 9 x 9 grid with thicker bars marking out 3 x 3 boxes (like Sudoku) and you write your PIN in four of these, then fill in the empty squares with the numbers 1-9. All you have to remember is that your PIN is eg the top left numbers in boxes 1, 2, 3 and 4 or the four corners of the middle box or the first four digits, reversed on the bottom row or...
"The worst that could happen is that the trader will know your PIN number. "
Yes and that's a prima facie excuse for the Card Company to deny liability for any fraud on the card.
And how difficult would it be to create a gizmo that, when you put the card in the slot, also reads the mag stripe?
And this doesn't even get near PayPal being so willing to reverse a transation and take money out of a Trader's account based on the say-so of a customer and *then* maybe start looking at whether the complaint was actually valid...
"...to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child younger than 17"
So how is this "likelihood" determined? What studies have *actually* demonstrated that such behaviour is "likely" to cause this? Or is it just based on supposition and narrow belief that "we think this is wrong, so it should be illegal" without any proof?
What do you think, boys and girls? (If you're old enough to be allowed to think about this, of course...!)
"When one day an expedition was sent to the spatial coordinates that Voojagig had claimed for this planet they discovered only a small asteroid inhabited by a solitary old man who claimed repeatedly that nothing was true, though he was later discovered to be lying.
"There did, however, remain the question of both the mysterious 60,000 Altairian dollars paid yearly into his Brantisvogan bank account, and of course Zaphod Beeblebrox's highly profitable second-hand biro business."
You're taking a big leap from parents being responsible for what their kids see to society being responsible for ensuring that that happens and, by inference, everyone else's rights being restricted to "think of the children".
As for your other Straw Man arguments, I'll treat them with the contempt they deserve.
"...which concluded that kids exposed to footage of extreme hardcore action and youngsters actually physically abused shared the same signs of trauma."
And did they study any and all *other* groups of children who had not been exposed to this footage, nor who had been actually physically abused to see if *they* also shared the same "signs of trauma"?
(And what were these "signs" anyway? Remember "shaken baby syndrome"??)
"Why is it always parental responsibility rather than societal responsibility?"
Because they are not MY children. They are not HIS children. They are not SOCIETY'S children.
They are *YOUR* children. YOU brought them into this world, it is YOUR responsibility to bring them up properly, NOBODY ELSE'S!
A simple fine like this is pointless, taking money from one organisation and sending it to another one isn't going to make a difference.
What the ICO should do is say "You will budget this money to conduct a comprehensive review of your data security procedures and ensure that proper measures are implemented to ensure that it does not happen again".
That way the money will actually do some good.
Fining this guy, let alone fining the patient who gave him the information is ridiculously stupid and counter-productive because the only thing it's going to deter is someone else exposing completely inadequate security procedures!
These are people's health records, they should be kept completely confidential and only be individually accessible to those who have a need to view them for a specific purpose, not "log in and cruise around until you find something you like"!
Not forgetting that that legalese is most likely presented in a tiny little window that shows about four lines making it virtually unreadable and meaning you have to scroll manually through it.
Not that they'd do that deliberately so you'll just click on "I accept" of course...
"...may be willing to overlook the privacy failings of the bill in exchange for a chance to put one over on Obama."
So they're anti-Big Government and state snooping and all that sort of stuff, apart from when they can play partisan political games...
And what if you wish to experiment with erotic asphyxiation?
It's dangerous, certainly, so the best thing you can do is to find out as much information about it, but if something goes wrong in a consensual scene (cf the Jane Longhurst case) how is google going to know whether you were planning on killing them or it was just a tragic accident? Answer, they can't.
Forget about presumption of innocence, forget about privacy, forget about due process, google says you've looked at this, so obviously you're guilty!
The idea is not to "frighten the criminals" the idea is to get businesses and organisations to actually admit that they have flaws in their security and *DO* something about them instead of just trying to sweep it under the carpet for fear that it might affect their share prices (and thus bonuses).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019