Posts by mark l

AMD to take on Intel's Atom... but not netbooks

Acer aspire one

"Anyone know where there's a stock of Acer Aspire One's going cheap (other than the Acer Outlet of course!) ?"

www.ukclearancecentre.co.uk had some the other day, i ordered one for the girlfriend, I think they only had pink ones in stock though so might not be suitable unless you want to get in touch with your girly side. lol

What ever happened to those £99 netbooks we were promised over 12 months ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1108673/Next-launches-99-laptop-fits-handbag.html

Mormons demand ICANN plugs net smut hole

who is paying for all of this?

What all the 'won't someone think of the children' lobbists seem to forget is that every proposal currently put forward requires a significant cost to the company's and webmasters that own the pron domains

If .xxx was brought in and that was the only domain allowed to have pron on it then the pron companys would need to register millions of new domains at a huge cost. This might be fine for big companys like hustler and playboy that have deep pockets but for smaller companys this could add a considerable cost and they run the risk that someone else registers their .xxx domain before they get chance to. Plus who is actually going to be the one who checks every .com .net .co.uk etc domain registered to see if someone puts a porn site on there?

The change of port is again another cost as although it wont require any new domains to be registered it will cost money in time for the webmaster to change port to use the new port. And do you think all the russians and eastern european sites are going to bother.

So ulitmately both ideas are major fail

SexSearch not responsible for underage hookup (again)

reasonable doubt

The law in the UK states that it is only a criminal offence if you did not reasonably believe the person was over 16. So if the person was on a 18+ dating website or in a nightclub that only allows over 18 then you wouldnt doubt that the person was under 18 and that would be a defense in law.

Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover

record shops

I've seen this album in a few record shops over the years and the police havent seen the need to raid them for 'kiddy porn' so i dont see why it needs to be censored on wikipedia.

Nudity does not necessarily = porn.

I've seen pre-pubesent children naked lots of times on beaches while on holiday and don't suddenly feel the need to go and molest a child. Its another example of the nanny state and has probably come about because 1 daily mail newspaper reading twat has been a bit offended and made a complaint