... wearing the skeleton top and a pair of those skin-stripped leggings next time you have to go through the Perv-o-scanner at an airport...?!
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
"what about that kind of deformity appeals to people?"
Yes, because everyone should only be attracted to "perfect" people and all the fatties and uglies and anyone who doesn't fit into some mythical ideal should be doomed to a life of lonliness and self-pleasure because nobody else is going to find them attractive.
Alternatively you could lose your bigotry and consider that not everyone finds the same things attractive as you do. See <a href=http://www.outsiders.org.uk/home">The Outsiders </a> for something that may open your eyes (and mind) a little.
And, of course, the iPhone contains *nothing* which is blatantly Prior Art based on technologies and ideas which have been knocking around for years yet which, due to the unconscionable failings of the USPO, have been granted to Apple as "original" patents.
We have already had the Associate Editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, moaning about the "Witch Hunt" and whinging that "Instead of being called in for questioning, 30 journalists have been needlessly dragged from their beds in dawn raids, arrested and held in police cells while their homes are ransacked,"
"Wives and children have been humiliated as up to 20 officers at a time rip up floorboards and sift through intimate possessions, love letters and entirely private documents."
Of course if the people involved had been suspected of being terrorists or paedophiles I have little doubt that his paper would be lauding the brave Police for "swooping" in "coordinated dawn raids" as concerned neighbours looked on (having been told, of course, by the noble Police that they're wrong'uns) whilst the suspects (who should be presumed innocent) are hauled away in handcuffs for questioning and their computers are seized to be searched for the incriminating material they no doubt contain...
Err, this a comment from the same person who, in a reply above said "Also, what is wrong with you, have you not got a mobile phone? Are you not able to connect via the mobile network in times when the fixed infrastructure is down?"
Please make up your mind, Obviously! or is these just "Typical English, engage the mouth before the brain" comment?
However when one of your staff decides that *his* opinions are the only ones that matter and that *nobody* else is allowed to post comments disagreeing with him (even when he gets fundamental details wrong such as thinking that Yvette Cloette is male!) it's not so much "our site - our rules" but "this is my ball and my back yard and if I don't like you, you're not allowed to play".
On the contrary, it is entirely "theoretical usefulness" and it is the sort of justification for mass ANPR, facial recognition to be added to all CCTV systems, DNA databases and every other "It's for your own protection, citizen" invasion of privacy which ignores the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence.
"Hello DrXym, this is the Police. There was a crime committed at ($location) and we notice from our records that you were in the vicinity at the time. Can you prove that you weren't involved....?"
I've just downvoted you for a silly analogy.
Yes, some things need to remain state secrets, but when a government passes laws through Policy Based Evidence Making or selects a supplier for a contract based on a handshake done in a back room with an agreement for a lucrative directorship to follow or many of the other decisions that are made on behalf of the public but not for the *benefit* of the public, we, the votes and taxpayers want, need and *deserve* to know what is being done in our name.
"Good policy grows from lively, uninhibited debate"
Which is a really great idea. Except people like Blair consider that "Good policy grows from everyone doing what *I* say" so the idea that the plebs find out that those who they elected to *represent* them in Parliament are being brow-beaten and having their arms twisted to support "Government Policy" is anathema to him.
"But it turns out they hadn't".
No, they just listened to the voice mails (which they shouldn't have been doing) and then the automatic system decided "Oh, look those mails have been listened to and not saved, so let's delete them".
So the actions of the News of the Screws *were* responsible for the voicemails being deleted and frankly, given that it was a gutter rag with a habit of fabricating details in their stories, they got everything they deserved.
Oh, no, of course they didn't!
'Judge Kimba Wood revealed that the record companies, seeking statutory damages against the music-sharing service, are seeking damages predicated on the “number of direct infringers per work” – leading to a damages claim of as much as $75 trillion dollars (according to Wikipedia, total global GDP is around $69 trillion)".'
"... is the biggest problem facing small businesses right now"
Speaking as a small business owner myself, I agree.
But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider excessive government regulation to be next in the line of problems, nor that I would say I wasn't "unduly concerned" about it.
It all depends on how you ask the question and who you ask it of (and how you interpret the results)
Try searching on google for a street address, town name, country whatever. At the top or within the first few results will be a google maps image.
There might be other mapping services available, some might even be more suitable for your use, but they're probably not going to get a look in because google is prioritising its service over any others.
That's not success, that's abuse of a monopolistic position.
"What we would like from advertisers is money, as such, all your data, search queries, location information and anything else we can mine from what you do with any Google products online is fair game for us to sell to them.
"Your privacy? Oh, you give that up when you use our services."
... let's stop getting into the "Tis!" "Tisn't!" "Tis so!!" arguments and just do our best to use *ALL* our energy in a more efficient manner, that way we stop chucking out CO2 (and other pollutants) *and* extend the availability of fossil fuels whilst we put serious money into alternative methods of energy generation.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019