Re: Just as well I don't use Online Banking
Yes, and keeping your cash under your mattress is so much safer too...
6901 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Yes, and keeping your cash under your mattress is so much safer too...
And, to the best of my knowledge, Disaster Area aren't playing in this solar system...
... to be found in low orbit...?
No they don't necessarily...
See this article about the work of a friend of mine who has turned his work in the Galaxy Zoo project into a PhD: http://aliceingalaxyland.blogspot.com/2011/01/doctor-proctor-and-irregular-galaxies.html
Let me give you another example of why smart meters are not a good idea:
At the moment there are a plethora of supply tarrifs, each company has dozens, online, offline, with standing charges or without, dual fuel or electricity and gas separate, fixed price, capped price, different charges for up to X KWh and then over and so on and so on and even with comparison sites it's a bugger of a job finding if you're getting a competitive rate or being ripped off.
Not only that, if you sign up for a tarriff and want to change you may get charged an "exit penalty" or, if the price drops, there have been cases where the company has charged people the higher rate for the *whole* period instead of when the price changed.
So do you think that smart meters are going to make the situation better? Well the answer is "far from it". What's more likely to happen now is that your consumption data is going be used to create an "individually tailored" charging package just for you which is going to make comparison between companies virtually impossible unless you're willing to sit down with a spreadsheet and calculate your exact usage hour by hour, day by day.
Who benefits from this? Not you, sunshine...
... on how to Sanitise a Telephone?
(All aboard the B-Ark...)
Since we now have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings Acts based on the idea that looking at that sort of thing will "Make You Do Bad Things[tm]", I think it's time that we started a petition to ban Soap Operas since it's clearly been shown that they are a greater danger to society!
... here's a quote I heard a few weeks ago:
"Jesus promised to rid the world of wicked people.
"Odin promised to rid the word of Ice Giants.
"I don't see any Ice Giants around, do you?"
... His Intergalactic Noodly Appendages!
Danger, incoming lawsuit!!
... in Predator?
... also detect a large magnetic anomaly in the region of Tycho crater...?
Just as long as there's an option to breed a giant monster and set it stomping through your neighbour's city!
(And a way of stopping them doing that to mine...)
It goes back much further than that: Urine has been used in leather tanning since time immemorial and the Romans collected it to distill for the ammonia to use in their laundries.
... was that they should be "non-obvious".
Responsible parents wanting to be able to block their kids from buying cigs and booze seems pretty bloody obvious to me!
The sound you hear is the RIAA and the BPI expiring from apoplexy!
Ah, once again the Matt Bryant movable goalposts are back out of storage, not to mention irrelevant personal attacks.
No, Matt, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories and trying to denigrate my arguments like that just shows the paucity of yours.
The fact is that when one side in an argument can (like you repeatedly try to do) move the goalposts and change the argument to irrelevancies instead of dealing with the actual issue that we should have had a discussion into *all* the options available *before* any referendum was ever held, we were given a false choice and straw man arguments (another one was the claim that AV was somehow not "one person one vote") then it's not a case of "an electorate usually gets the politicans it deserves. You reap what you sow", but those who follow the Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") decide what we reap from what they sow.
Once again I'll let you get the last word because there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
Matt Bryant: "If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either."
Oh good grief, Matt. It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories) could put into straw man advertising ("If you vote for AV this soldier won't get a bullet proof vest") and other ridiculous nonsense such as that contained in your second paragraph.
If you really wanted to summarize the situation accurately you could have said "Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. We could have given them a choice between the sandals and ballet pumps, stiletto heels, trainers, slippers, wellington boots, flip-flops, waders, army boots etc etc, but if we did that, they might actually realise that there *are* better options."
Instead, they, like you, offer a false dichotomy of "well it's either sandals or trainers" and use that to set up a straw man argument showing how bad the "only available" alternative is.
The only bit you did get right is that "it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution", but you miss the point that it was never an open and free choice in the first place.
@Matt Bryant: "before you start going on about proportional representation, please look at the mess that has caused in other countries such as Greece" etc etc etc
Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system and which were refuted time and again, yet, due to large amounts of money spent on a campaign of FUD and lies ("Vote No to AV or the baby dies") we ended up with an electorate that were confused or scared into sticking with FPTP.
When I first read that article and was pissed off enough to make that OP, I wasn't expecting over 100 upvotes! Thanks everyone.
(And one downvote, it seems, from the Vicar of St Albions...!)
"Individuals need to have private communications, he said, but at the same time there are people who threaten our way of life that have to be stopped. Politicians, however, need privacy to function, "
And there we have Blair, once again, in a nutshell: One rule for them, another for us.
The man who tried to give us DNA databases, ID Cards, ANPR and CCTV on every corner with facial recognition to track us everywhere we go and watch everything we do thinks that he and his cronies "need privacy to function" but *NOBODY* else does!
Share and Enjoy!
I would have been worried if it was one of these...
... of the Matt cartoon from a few months back showing a penguin at the Leveson enquiry complaining about how whether he was feeding, mating, caring for his young, there was David Attenborough and a film crew watching everything...
"if birds carried seeds to Antarctica..."
What, like coconuts...?
Why bother? The chances are a million to one...
Hmm, what's that noise? Sounds like Ulla! Ulla!
"...has claimed victory in the election."
It just would have been nice if he'd not done so *before* voting started...
Well they've got a great location for a secret base!
... infinitely improbable to me.
(Thumb icon because...)
If someone is using a service like Call1899 it comes up as "International" even though they're calling a UK number from another UK number, so you might be blocking a valid call.
Translation: Someone high enough up the food chain was responsible, so we're going to keep schtum and pay the fine with public money instead of sacking the idiot.
As far as I'm concerned, they have their wish!
... no, I'm not wasting time on the net when I should be working, I'm undergoing chronic fatigue recovery!
Following up to myself simply to say: "Blimey, I'm amazed that comment didn't get blocked!"
Please look up the logical fallacies of "Appeal to Ridicule" and "Straw Man".
... Fuck Yeah!!!
And seizing the computer and "discovering" kiddie porn on it...
... why they seem to be losing the respect of the general public...
... is Treasonous, Citizen!
(Mine's the Ultraviolet security clearance one...)
Ah yes, along with "to protect children" this is one of the best "If you disagree. you must be a terrorist/ kiddy fiddler" arguments to shut down opposition...
Of course, don't you know that your job is simply to advise Government *how* a policy that they've already decided on can be implemented.
You're not supposed to be consulted on whether the policy is actually a good idea.
- Signed: Sir Humphrey
... if you go to google.com/history and sign into your Google account you can click on the “Remove all Web History” button deleting its record of your actions whilst signed in.
This also automatically pauses Web History, meaning no more information will be collected until you click the blue “Resume” button at the top of the page.
For more information see the full article on Digital Trends http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/how-to-delete-your-google-web-history/
Oh deary, deary me. Once again, rtli- you ignore the argument and, instead, attempt a pathetic point-scoring exercise. "Oh look, Graham said ten instead of a hundred, I WIN!!!" Yeah, whatever.
As for your "rebuttal" this is *why* we have things like the Right to Silence and the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process and the requirements for Search Warrants and Habeas Corpus and all those other pesky little things that you seem to be quite content to sweep away just to "help Police with their enquiries."
I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Moore in "A Man for All Seasons":
* * * * *
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
* * * * *
Feel free to get the last word in (I'm sure you will). I've wasted enough time here.
"This is precisely why we have laws: to protect society from individuals who believe they are more important than other people."
Society has Rights such as the Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Silence to protect individuals from the authorities (and people) who believe that convicting someone of a crime is more important than protecting the liberties of everyone.
(I'm talking about you there, by the way.)
"Better a hundred guilty men go free, than one innocent man suffer." - William Blackstone.
"Better a hundred innocent men suffer, than one guilty man go free" - rtli-
Now that the fallacies in your arguments have been explained again, but this time in terms that even you cannot wilfully misunderstand, you stoop to ad hominem attacks.
"How fortunate we have a jury-based legal system based on evidence, rather than the deranged examples of an internet poster."
Yet one particular deranged internet poster seems to be happy with the idea of instead of a Jury being told "If the prosecution can't prove their case, you *cannot* find the defendant guilty" them being told "if the defendant cannot prove his innocence you *must* find them guilty".
"Now explain to me why a dichotomy is a bad thing in law?"
Apart from playing sad little word games, you really don't understand this principle of "Presumption of Innocence" do you? Under the system you propose, you either have to incriminate yourself by revealing your password or incriminate yourself by saying "I don't know it" in which case the prosecution says "AHA! He clearly has something to hide therefore the jury must find him guilty!"
Presumed guilty until proven guilty. Bravo.
Try researching a little law. Obstructing a Police Officer means, for instance, deliberately getting in his way when he's trying to arrest a suspect. Simply saying "I'm not going to help" is not an offence, nor should it ever be.
As for "if they don't -know- the password", under the sort of laws you seem to prefer, the prosecution could simply claim "the defendant *does* know the password and is refusing to reveal it, so he should be locked up for obstructing us until he tells us what it is!"
In vain would the Defence say "he doesn't know it" because you have presumed guilt and require the Defence to prove innocence. Corrupt cops would *love* that...
Remember than in Britain it's now a criminal offence *not* to give up your password if the Authorities demand it.
Naturally this law was introduce simply to protect us from terrorism. It's not as if anyone else would ever be convicted under it, is it...
[quote]The first person convicted under this law was a vulnerable eccentric who refused to decrypt the files on his laptop when the Met's terror squad told him to. He was convicted and jailed despite prosecutors accepting that he was not involved in terrorism at all.[/quote]
So, not like, oh, I don't know, a freight train, but only a sledgehammer...
"The first mass driver known in print was actually called the "electric gun" and described in detail as a way to launch vehicles into outer space from the Earth's surface in the 1897 science fiction novel A Trip to Venus by John Munro and published in 1897 by Jarrold & Sons, London"
Heinlein's story was good, but not the first.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017