Congratulations, WPC Smith...
... you win the "Scapegoat of the Year" award!
6905 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... you win the "Scapegoat of the Year" award!
Yes, it reads "It's nothing to do with me, can I have another promotion, please..."
Oh don't you lot start too!
Any more trouble out of you lot and I'll be calling the Vogons!
... think of the market for all those nun-sploitation films!
And some Factor 10,000,000 suncream...!
... what about Songs of Praise?!
So how come I got a message saying that one of my friends had used an application when I know he'd been without an internet connection for a week?!
... with a picture of someone bending over with their trousers around their ankles...!
... they forgot "Don't put it on unencrypted laptops or data sticks which get left on trains or in taxis and most certainly don't store it on CDs which you then send through the post!"
"We need more thrust, Scotty!"
"I'm gie'in her all I've got, Cap'n!!"
Twatt in the Orkneys?
Oh yes she will...!
(Mine's the ones with the Buttons!)
"... that want to orchestrate a governmental takeover of internet regulation."
Well we don't know of any of those, do we, boys and girls?!
Since you put the troll icon on your post, you save me the trouble of having to point the fact out.
The Daily Mail readers are the ones who are saying "Damnit, just give them a good Tasering or beating, never did me any harm, teach them a lesson they won't forget, doncherknow!"
Oh, so 500 deaths "isn't too bad"?! I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to, say, the family of Robert Dziekański who died after being Tasered by Canadian Police, restrained, cuffed and *THEN* repeatedly Taserered *again*.
And if the cops in your "bad neighbourhood" were unable to effect an arrest without "beating the holy living shit out of you", the suggests that, given Tasers, they'd just Taser the "living holy shit out of you instead" and strikes me as a stunning lack of professionalism on their part (or a desire to be Judge, Jury and Executioner).
"HE winds up in the clink instead of the perp"
Sure, just like the officers who killed Jean Charles de Menezes (and then lied about it) are now languishing in jail...
Or the ones who gave Rodney King a good kicking...
Remember that the Taser is supposed to be a Non-Lethal (oops, I mean *less* lethal) alternative to using firearms yet, despite that, there have been around 500 deaths linked to Taser use, more than a few of which have been related to the target having using illegal narcotics.
Given that a plastic light-saber is not a deadly weapon, using a Taser in a situation like this was completely unnecessary and I don't see that as "minimising risk to the suspect".
... a ouija board!
After the last lot of patches downloaded and installed, as usual Windows decided that what *it* was doing was more important than what I was doing and flashed up a message saying "You need to reboot", making that the active window.
Fortunately they've at least stopped auto-selecting the "Reboot Now" button with the result that if you're typing (as I was) and press Return at the wrong moment, you automatically reboot without having the chance to save what you're working on...
Dear me, El Reg, is that the best you can come up with?
... for the heart of the sun!
... So are you saying that people aren't wearing enough hats?
With apologies to Python (Monty)
... Everything I want to watch, I record on Sky+ consequently ad breaks are a matter of pressing the fast forward button and counting an appropriate number of seconds before I press play again.
Bingo, no noisy ads!
Damn, you beat me to it! :-)
Would you like to buy a new Irony Detector? Yours seems to be broken.
... What a bunch of wowsers!
... make lots of money from this!
Six months, creep!
Many years ago you could play games like Space Invaders and those which followed for one 10p coin, one play.
Then came games like Gauntlet where (unless you were incredibly skilled) you had to keep shoveling in coins in order to get further into the game (or not play, which I did).
This paying for top-ups is the same thing, writ on new technology.
Since you apparently need me to spell it out for you, please allow me to explain:
Firstly, it's clear that you don't run a business since, if you did, it would rapidly become bankrupt because trying to solve a problem like this by simply "employing a lot of people" would just be throwing money down the drain.
Secondly, you miss the fact, whilst it is, indeed, up to business to comply with the law, to try to make a global business compliant with *every* law, *everywhere* would be an even bigger waste of money and utterly futile.
I do run a business and supply products worldwide, but due to the adult nature of those products, they are not legal in certain countries. Now if someone from one of those countries chooses to order a product from me, should I be required to ascertain whether my product is legal under that country's laws or is the onus on the customer to ensure that they are not breaking that country's laws buy ordering it. You seem to think that the former is the case, even though I am breaking no laws in my country by selling the item. If I supply that person, should I be liable for arrest in their country?!
If Google were to accept the Italian ruling, then they would have to start censoring *everything* on Youtube and every search result and every g-mail to ensure that it didn't breach some country's laws which would be so monumentally expensive and so monumentally ridiculous that these flaws should be obvious.
"Employ a lot of people", I would laugh at this ironic joke, except it seems you appear to think that you're making a sensible and reasonable suggestion.
There again you also appear to think that "if their business model is predicated on ignoring the law and hoping it will go away, how is that the law's problem?" is a reasonable (and accurate) argument too.
Unfortunately both of these are fundamentally flawed in ways that are so obvious I can't even be bothered to point out the fallacies.
Is the fact that the porn on YouTube gets taken down quickly because a) google spot it or b) other people spot it and complain?
In any case, the issue is not "is this porn or not" (which is reasonably easy to determine) but "is this illegal in some country somewhere in the world", which is not because that requires a much more subjective value judgement.
According to Youtube (also owned by Google) somewhere between 24 and 48 hours of video are uploaded *EVERY MINUTE*!
How on earth do you expect them to pre-screen that much content and make sure that everything they see is acceptable in *every* country in the world???
(Oh, and as regards the the Post Office too. I *know* that letters are private, I simply chose that as an easy to understand example to point was that it is the sheer unfeasibility of checking that much content)
I think you've just manged to completely miss the point.
Google took the clip down when they were made aware of it, but the prosecutors in this case are saying that the defendants in this case were found guilty because "Google should have sought permission from those involved before putting the video online".
To say that Google should pre-screen *everything* that someone puts on GoogleVid is like saying that the Post Office should pre-screen every letter sent via their service, it is completely unfeasible and a ridiculous law.
If you follow the logic of your argument through, then Google will have to pre-screen every bit of content according to the laws of *EVERY* country in the world!
What if you choose to post a clip making fun of Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Modern Turkey? That's illegal in that country, so should Google have to pre-screen and refuse to distribute it because the Turks don't like it?
And what about all those naughty clips which are illegal in many other countries? How can google pre-screen everything unless they employ specialist staff from every country in the world to check that they're not breaching each country's law?
I have no love for Google, but if they don't fight this one and win it will have a chilling effect on freedom of expression across the world.
... save the number in your phone's memory under "Spam" or "Junk" or similar.
That way the next time one comes from the same source, you can delete it without even wasting time reading it :-)
If you'd done your homework (or even have read the article) you'd have noticed that they were a) testing the velocity they could get from a home made cannon, b) had water barrels *and* an earth berm behind them.
What appears to have gone wrong is that the velocity was much greater than they had anticipated, consequently the trajectory of the cannonball was too high, going over the water barrels and then skipping off the berm, causing it to be lofted towards the houses.
It's easy with hindsight to think that they should have aimed it with a lower trajectory etc, but given that the officials at the Alameda County Bomb Range let them fire it (which I doubt very much they'd have done if they thought this could happen) this is clearly just an unfortunate series of events rather than a lack of "homework".
And they've never accidentally linked the data of two unrelated people, nor denied someone credit based on what a previous occupant of that address did, nor mis-recorded data so that the details of someone with the same name affect your records...
Nope, this never happens...
But don't you know we're now all presumed guilty unless we can prove our innocence!
Got something to hide...? Well, not any more!
... I'd love to, but even if that link wasn't broken (it is) I'd prefer to have done so without Andrew Orlowski poisoning the well with his snide comments before we even get a chance to look at the Paper.
... You could teach people that red light jumping is potentially murderous behaviour and apply appropriate penalties rather than a pathethic slap on the wrist (in this country £60 penalty and 3 points)
It's not exactly rocket science. To quote the Highway Code:
* * * * *
Junctions controlled by traffic lights
175 You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop might cause a collision.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36]
176 You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36]
* * * * *
If you are incapable of obeying these simple rules, you should not be on the road (and, speaking as a cyclist, yes, that *INCLUDES* bicycles too, to forestall the automatic response from car drivers).
'... "any normal human being would be offended by".'
You do NOT have the right to not be fucking offended!
And what the hell gives *YOU* the right to decide who is "normal" and who isn't let alone decide that something should be denied to others because *you* consider it offensive?
Once again we see someone attempting to sneak through a restriction of freedom of expression based on the idea that "we don't like this, so you are not allowed to see it".
"Assuming they can get that right"
And that's the worry. Simply taking eg someone's name off the records might not be enough if there are other ways to link patient data together, just as what happened with "anonymised" search details.
But I agree if this can be done then the NHS should be well compensated for the information.
... has diminished because we have introduced all those pesky regulations designed to stop the people from being victims of negligence in trials such as this one:
It's far better (well, cheaper and more profitable) now for Pharmaceutical companies to do their trials on poor Indian people because the regulations are much more lax, the people are less well informed, there is little transparency on who is actually on the ethics committee which approves the trial, and if something goes wrong they don't have to pay so much compensation...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018