Oi, that's bang out of ordah!!!
But if they have to do it, I propose Ms Bee for the role of "'er indoors".
195 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Oct 2007
The blog in question has a grand total of 5 posts on it, the last one written four months ago, and would no doubt have languished in well-deserved obscurity without Ms Cohen splashing it round the papers.
It's a lesson for her NOT to go ego-surfing through google for every mention of her name - not everything you find is going to please you.
This looks pretty much like a non-story, even by the standards of the Daily Mail.
Lewes council are establishing a policy for NEW street names where they avoid ones likely to attract graffiti (and thus cost them money). One would hope that this is already an unwritten rule in councils up and down the country - Lewes are just formalising it.
It has nothing to do with "banning" existing street names, demolishing our proud heritage of sniggering at "Butt Hole Lane" or any kind of PC nonsense. It has everything to do with the Mail needing to fill a few column inches with ranting when nothing much has happened over the holidays (apart from WW3 breaking out in Gaza - but they can't blame that on looney left pc asylum seekers, so it doesn't count).
I hereby propose a wholly uncontroversial street name which nobody would want to vandalise:
Thedailymailisacrockofshite Street
Who wouldn't want to write that on all their letters?
Surely the truly faithful would PRAY for the university to change their minds, rather than running straight to the lawyers (who are generally assumed to bat for the other side anyway).
If the heather university's walls don't come tumbling down, maybe the almighty doesn't actually agree with them, or even - heavens [not] above - doesn't exist?
Mind you, I think he's a bit busy at the moment, bringing petrol prices down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/05/30/ST2008053003189.html
I'm a big fan of Lewis' articles, finding them both informative and entertaining. With this one, I've not got a clue what he's talking about. Something about idiots (nearly) going over a cliff because they've got more gadgets than sense.
Could he just tell the story "in clear", before embroidering it with all the RoTM stuff?
Oh noes! This will be used by kidnappers!
Because if GSV did not exist they'd have no way of telling which stop signs are on Larry's route to work other than, erm, looking at a map.
The only genuinely sensitive piece of information here is Larry's home address - which is something not immediately or obviously available through Street View. Once you've got that, you can generate all this seemingly insecure stuff - but it's nothing that you couldn't do yourself with the Mountain View AtoZ and a box brownie.
Seems to me that Larry's got a lot more to worry about than I have with G taking pictures of his pad. If he's cool about it, why are we worrying?
[insert random petard-related comment here]
"You lose a machine for even a minute or so - the images that machine is going to provide can't be used, and so you then have to choose from the remaining results you have"
I didn't get a degree from Stanford in searchengineology, nor have I spent any time amongst the massive brains of the Googleplex, but it seems to me that the sensible thing to do if you can't access the appropriate picture would be to put in a little icon saying "picture not available". Something all "web 2.0" with gradients and rounded corners if that's what floats your boat.
Putting in random gay porn images in the hope that nobody notices/cares seems more than a bit sub-optimal.
I think there may be a reason why these folks are EX Google employees...
Do bear in mind that many folks outside the IT profession have a touching faith in the infallability of computers. Whilst most of us here, on reading the printout, would probably consider the liklihood of Tesco being in error; for many folks "if the computer says it, it must be true".
"The players head to grass for one month a year and get trounced by the guy with the best game".
Yeah, what a ridiculous state of affairs that is. At least in the rest of the tour victory goes to the guy with the nicest haircut, or the longest shorts, or something.
Isn't it supposed to be the point of sporting competitions that the winner is "the guy with the best game"? What would you prefer?
PS. This year I cleverly, albeit accidentally, found myself on holiday in Greece (where they've never heard of lawn tennis, or lawns for that matter) during the whole of Wimbledon apart from finals weekend. Brilliant! got to see some tennis, but spared all that "could this be a year when [insert hopeless Briton here] wins it" media frenzy before (s)he is ingnominiously dumped out in the quarter finals.
Ridiculing this proposal does not amount, in any way, to "ridicul[ing] the Cornish people". There are half a million people living in Cornwall; 499,700 don't speak Cornish. If there's money to be spent developing the county (and development cash is something they very much need, I gather), I'm sure a lot of them would like to see it spent on something more useful.
It was a pretty good series at the time (I was 12 when it first came out), and I wouldn't object to watching it again, but "one of the best-loved and most successful dramas of all time"? Right up there with Eurypides and Shakespeare and Ibsen? Someone should tell her a million times not to exaggerate.
Everyone here seems very exercised on, or against, Ms Campbell's behalf. Just remember that we know very few facts about what actually happened.
I have to say, though, that it seems pretty unlikely that a purely verbal complaint on the battlin' clothehorse's part would bring on the attentions of a tazer-toting squad of Heathrow's finest.
I'm guessing that BA flight crew are like everybody else - they want to get through their work day as quickly and easily as possible. Calling in the rozzers purely because a passenger has complained is bound to involve a lot of time and hassle, not to mention a ton of paperwork (what doesn't?). It doesn't sound like a course of action that they'd be overkeen to embark upon.
Could it be - dare I say it - that the reports of this event in the media (not El Reg, of course!) have been somewhat garbled? After all, the UK press is often thinner than your average supermodel in the fact department!
I do not have a problem with paying MPs a decent salary for the job they do.
I do not mind them being reimbursed for legitimate expenses that they incur.
What I object to is that their expenses regime is radically different to anything the rest of us have to follow. Even if an employer were generous enough to lay out this kind of dough, there's no way the Revenue would wear it. What? Buy and kit out a London house for yourself out of untaxed income? Oh, and £400 a month's worth of grub to keep body and soul together?
If Jo(e) Public has to cough up to the tax man for the "benefits in kind" acumulated whilst doing his/her job, why should MPs be any different?
If the powers-that-be really, genuinely believed that this useless card was a valuable contribution to the war on terror, wouldn't they introduce it NOW instead of fannying about till 2012?
If the govt. ever reveal their real reason for wanting these cards - 'cos the ones they've given so far are bollocks - I'll consider getting one (and then not do so, cos I don't want all my details left on a laptop somewhere).
No 2 ID 4 ever!
"What is this assertion based upon? Language MUST change."
Well, I don't know about "MUST", but english - and every other living language that I'm aware of - HAS been changing continually for hundreds of years.
You could take the view that the language evolved from the tongues of Romans, Britons, Angles, Saxons and Normans; through Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens and heaven-knows-who-else until it reached its absolute zenith on the first day you went to school. Since then everything's gone downhill. But isn't that a little self centred?
Just to interrupt the hate-fest for a moment...
The fire guy says "It is not frequent but still a regular occurrence." Well, I suppose, once every six weeks does count as "regular", but it seems pretty insignificant to me.
Surely it can't possibly be worth the hassle of raising charges just to cover 8 incidents a year - especially if those charges are only going to be made on some other branch of the public sector. Hurrah!, x pounds has been shifted from this budget to that one! How many extra bureaucrats will need to be taken on to achieve this triumph in accountancy?