... The Big Bang Theory is still going strong.
Probably something to do with it actually being funny...
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Your whole post boils down to one single point: "if it addresses these attitudes [...] ‘pour encourager les autres’"
If you're not aware, the origin of that comment was in Voltaire's Candide and was in reference to the execution of Admiral John Byng for failing to relieve the beseiged British Garrison at Minorca
Byng was effectively made a scape-goat for the British Government and Admiralty's failure to do *their* job properly by a) not acting in time to deal with the expected French attack on Minorca and b) sending Byng out with ships that were undermanned and in a poor state of repair.
So you're looking to do pretty much the same, find a scapegoat to blame for *your* failures and if that requires locking them up for four years, well, that's not your problem, is it?
The fact that "make an example of them" sentences have been shown throughout history to be abject failures in dealing with the root causes of problems seems to be of no concern to you either.
Ah, right, so you're talking about a parenting failure.
Still, nice to see that, rather than learning from such mistakes (or, even better, teaching children a bit of common sense so they don't happen in the first place ) you're in favour of locking them up for four years instead.
To paraphrase an old quote: "What if they gave a riot but nobody came?"
Not long after the recent riots, just down the road from me a party got out of hand with over 100 people turning up after word got out via Twatter etc.
The Police managed to herd them out of the side roads and contain them, but some drunken idiots "for a laugh" apparently started chanting "we're going to riot".
There was no riot, very little damage was caused, but should those idiots also get four year sentences?
Regrettably, now, under one of the Thought Crime laws that Blair's minions brought in, "two girls [...] dressed in school uniform and [...] about to kiss" could be classed as kiddie porn since they're in school uniform, so it's possible to assume that they're under age.
What this does to St Trinian's films I don't know, but it's probably not good.
Even if you *KNOW* something has gone missing because you sent it, the Post Office will just say "Fill in this form, send it to us and eventually, after you've allowed three weeks for it to turn up, fob you off with a letter saying 'if it is important you should pay extra for Recorded or Special Delivery and there's nothing else we can do'".
Been there, done that...
... that certain Providers will add (if they don't have already) a clause in their T&Cs which states that only *YOU* have the right to listen to the music or read the books etc you've downloaded and that, on death, the ownership rights revert to the Provider, so passing on your password to your wife or children is breaking the law (or will be when they've finished lobbying for it!)
"An r18 film is only allowed to be sold by a licensed sex shop."
True, for bricks and mortar shops, but it's also perfectly legal for you to buy such a film via the web from anywhere in Europe *except* the UK unless the UK seller has paid for a licence for their business to be classed as a sex shop even if it has no physical high-street presence!
Consequently you have UK suppliers who can legally make films which are not for sale in this country...
I suggest you consider these two sentences from your post again:
1) "they are not trying to foist their ideas on anyone else."
2) "a quick trip to a children's clothes shop where sexy underwear for 9 year olds is on display may result in anyone reasonably wondering whether this is appropriate, Christian or not."
The point is they are not simply "reasonably wondering" if this is appropriate and then, if they decide for themselves that it is not, they won't buy such things for their children, they have already decided that it *is* appropriate and now consider that it is their duty to lobby the Government to impose that decision on everyone else, just as they have done with their desire for "opt in" porn.
Speaking also as a "middle-aged biker" and one who only passed his Direct Access four years ago, I'd just like to say: Nonsense!
It's not the "middle aged" ones I see trying to get their knee down on the A272, nor are they the ones carving across lanes of traffic on the motorway or doing stupid overtakes on blind bends and crossing double white lines or treating the chevron-ed dividing gap between two-way traffic as a "bikers only" lane which they can blast along at stupid speeds blithely trusting that no cager is going to obstruct their path...
Back in the 1980s, when the 0898 adult phone lines were in operation, it was decided to make access to those lines "opt in" so everyone, by default, was opted out and, if they wanted to phone those numbers, they had to contact BT and ask someone to switch on that feature.
Not surprisingly, the number of people phoning those number plummeted and the Operators of those legitimate businesses were almost driven to bankruptcy because of the censorship of their provision of perfectly legal content.
Fortunately sanity, at last, prevailed, and the default was switched to "opt out", but it's a salutary warning of what happens when Governments try to do something "For The Good Of the Children!"
"[...] all the research was conducted on volunteers who were fully aware they were being watched."
So unless they're amazingly good actors the "Observer Paradox" comes into effect whereby the knowledge that you're being watched changes the way you behave, thus invalidating the results.
I know exactly what you mean. So much of what appears on TV these days (especially what passes as "documentary") has images simply because, well, it's TV, you've got to have pictures, but they don't actually *add* anything to what you're hearing.
Oh, BTW, I'm writing this reply whilst "watching" (or listening to) Mock the Week on Sky+ :-)
Harder, yes, impossible no.
A little story: Many years ago I and friends used to crack copy protection on games on the BBC Micro so we could hack the code for infinite lives etc (not to actually *copy* the games of course, because that's *theft* doncherknow...!)
As time went on the protection got harder and more intricate, culminating in a version which Exclusive-Or-ed a bit-stream from the cassette (yes, games came on cassette tapes years ago, boys and girls!) against the timer such that any attempt to break into it would change the reading on the timer and thus render the code garbage and pressing the "Break" key would just wipe the memory.
Of course as soon as we realised this, we figured there was a simple bypass by taking out the chip with the OS on it (yes, a chip with the *whole* OS!) copying it and re-blowing it onto an EPROM but without the code that wiped the memory.
So we could then load the game, press Break and save the memory giving us full access to the code which we could hack to our hearts' content.
In other words we found a flaw in Security by Obscurity which, once breached, made all the Security completely redundant.
The moral of this story is that Security by Obscurity will make life harder for those who want to get their hands on the code, but unless you have something else in there as well, once it's breached, your code is wide open.
But she is not showing games "For Gain"! Now if she was charging an entry fee on the door, that would be "for gain", but she's offering them for *free* and anyone coming into the pub can buy a drink if they want, just as they could before, however that has nothing to do with the football.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019