@David D. Hagood
Damn, you beat me to it! :-)
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
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.
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".
... 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...
"One careful owner, fell off the back of an Atlas launcher if you know what I mean..."
But seriously, WTF??? How does one of these "go missing" and end up on eBay? It's not as if you can hide it under your coat when you leave work!!
PS And who the hell would be searching on eBay for one of these, let alone bidding on it anyway?
"We just need the right information at the right time, which Cluzee intelligently provides"
So their application "intelligently" decides what the "right" information is.
But is that what you *need* to know or what their sponsors and advertising partners decide would be most beneficial to them for you to know...?
It's not a request, it's an order: "the US district court for Nevada ordered the offending sites be: "De-indexed and/or removed from any search results pages …"
If you really are someone who works with Search Engines, I suggest you list the ones that you work for so people can ensure that you are actually obeying the law, rather than saying "OMG this Judge says we have to de-list them, so we must do that immediately, regardless of due process or any other such legal niceties."
"...can be sustained only for tiny instants of time"
Ah, so it's a 1MW Pulse Laser.
They need to hyperspace to a system with a higher Tech Level and sell off a cargo at a decent profit to at least upgrade to a Beam Laser.
Mine's the one with the "Right on, Commander!" badge...
... Just make sure that a) the purchase value is over £100 and b) you use a credit card (not a debit card) to buy the goods.
That way, under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act the card company is jointly and severally liable for the transaction, so if anything goes wrong and Best Buy don't want to play, you can tell your card company to sort it or give you your money back :-)
Taxi! Follow those goalposts...
You said "For all you know, he could have got an uninterrupted eight hours every night", but when I cite proof that he did not, you dodge the issue and try to ignore it claiming that I have "debunked" myself. As for it not being sleep deprivation, let me wake you "several times during the night" and we'll see how non-sleep-deprived you feel the next morning (and the next when I do it again...)
You said "I think you'll find the logs were made available to the prosecution", but I can't find any proof of that other than your claim. You could have backed this up with a cite, but instead you again dodge the issue saying "Anything made available to the prosecution is made available to the defence" (I could point to numerous cases of miscarriages of justice where this has not happened, but I expect you to ignore that too)
As for Manning not being taken off suicide watch, your argument appears to be that you consider "cover your ass" to be more important than respecting someone's rights.
Oh and finally I have severe astigmatism. My eyes are -10 dioptres on the right and -11 on the left which technically means I am classed as "partially sighted". Yet I am sitting here, typing this with my glasses on and able to see perfectly clearly, however were I to take my glasses off I would be unable to see anything clearly more than about three inches away.
So again when you claim "there is NO WAY they coulf have lifted his vision to the point where it was acceptable " you demonstrate that you have no idea what you're talking about.
And finally you seem to think that an accusation of treason is sufficient to justify pre-emptively punishing someone before any conviction has been made by a court of law.
As with the other thread, feel free to have the last word.
I can see now that it is utterly pointless trying to have a reasonable debate with you. Anything that doesn't fit in with your preconceived ideas is either dismissed or ridiculed with childish comments about "bleaters" or nonsensical assumptions about other posters' motivations.
You ignore anything that you don't agree with and when someone demonstrates you are mistaken you try to shift the goal posts and then claim that you have "proved" that the other person is wrong.
Your argument above about the RoE is a perfect example, how exactly was shooting up people (including children) trying to help wounded "protecting" the soldiers on the ground? How exactly were they "threatening" to their comrades' safety? They weren't of course, but that's not your problem, is it?
And as for I "don't just hold the lives of armed militia as more value than those of the US soldiers on the ground" the Rules of Warfare don't make anyone standing nearby someone who may be carrying a weapon a fair target, unless, of course, you're in the US and can use the words "Collateral Damage" to mean "murdering innocent people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time".
Please feel free to get the last word in this thread, I've wasted enough time on someone who isn't willing to listen to any other opinion than his own.
No, I can't say *exactly* how many times he was woken, however quoting from the New Statesman:
"At night, Manning is stripped to his underwear and has to sleep under blankets that he says give him carpet burn. He is usually woken several times throughout the night by guards."
Now are you saying that the New Statesman Magazine is just another "bleater"?
You claim that "I think you'll find the logs were made available to the prosecution", yet despite searching, I can't find any factual basis for this and, in any case, why would the *prosecution* want to see the logs? It's is the *defence* who need them!
What I have found, however, is that "A Freedom of Information Act request for documents on accused whistleblower to WikiLeaks Pfc. Bradley Manning’s treatment at Quantico Marine brig, filed by POLITICO, reveals on multiple occasions Manning was recommended for removal from “prevention of injury” (POI) status by psychiatrists and psychologists but was not removed."
So medical officers and doctors said that Manning wasn't a suicide risk, yet those who were holding him decided to keep him on that status anyway.
Oh and as regards "If his vision was that bad without glasses he would never have been accepted for service!" a little bit of searching has found that bad eyesight does not preclude someone from joining the US Army as long as their *corrected* vision with glasses passes the required standard. But let me guess, you don't need glasses, because if you did you'd understand what it's like to have everything more than a short distance in front of you rendered as a vague blur.
And finally as for "HIS ACTIONS PUT HIM WHERE HE IS NOW", might I remind you of the principle of presumption of innocence?
Please do a little more thinking before going off on another of your little tirades.
There is a *big* difference between the "we were only obeying orders when we tortured detainess" defence and the "we were following the Rules of Engagement, honest!" defence.
Trying to equate the two to justify the US Military's exoneration of the Apache helicopter crew for murdering innocent people (including those trying to assist the killed and wounded who were clearly *not* a threat) is simply ridiculous.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019