Posts by Daggersedge 79 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Mar 2010
The web series is Noob. It's in French, but there is a version with English subtitles. I don't know how good the translation is because I can understand French, so I don't need to watch it. Here's a link to the main site (in French):
http://noob-tv.com/accueil_prod.html
Gabe Newell should change his name to Charles-Antoine Donteuil and set up an MMORPG called Horizon. He should then put his popular and highly successful players on contract so that he could use them in advertisements for the games. They, as well, could sign autographs, make appearances at conventions, sign sponsorship deals for other products, etc. Of course, when marketing needs change, Donteuil - I mean, Newell - can always discard these players in unfair ways...
Or perhaps he can look up the plot of a popular web TV series and see where this sort of thing leads to.
First the US Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain meant that private developers could take people's property by force. Now it has ruled that individuals must use corporate arbitration procedures, no matter how unfair. On top of that, the US taxpayer has been forced to fund the bail-out of the banks.
Americans like to shout that their right to own guns protects their freedoms. Certainly working well, isn't it?
Paris, because she doesn't know what she's going to do next, either.
If you have something to hide, then learn to hide it. If you think you might have something to hide, then learn to hide it. If you just want to protect your privacy even if you don't have anything to hide at the moment, then learn to how to hide.
Don't expect the technology you buy to do your work for you. Don't go around like wide-eyed fluffly little bunnies expecting that Apple, Google, any business, the police, governments, etc, were going to do you any favours. Acting all shocked that someone can track you by your mobile phone is the same thing as acting shocked that the local curtain-twitcher can keep track of when you leave and return home.
Get smart: not only should you learn to hide, but you should learn to turn the technology against them. Plant your phone on someone else. Swap phones with friends. There are many things you can do, depending on what your plans are and how proactive you want to be. Expecting someone else to look out for you, though, means you'll always lose.
Attack the person, not the message: that's what you politically-correct feminists always do.
Shaming behaviour doesn't work on me. You see, I'm a woman. That's right, there are women out there who despise feminists and their victimist perks for the girls theology. Dividing the world into victims and oppressors encourages spitefulness, weakness, and passive-aggressive behaviour.
Oh, and speaking of victimist theologies, I also hate political correctness. It, too, encourages the above-mentioned behaviour. It also encourages the loss of a sense of humour. The one thing it doesn't encourage, though, is the ability to think for oneself.
Amnesty International is just a feminist-ridden politically-correct so-called charity that deserves anything like this that happens to it.
Yes, I know, it's breaking the law. So what? Just because hackers aren't British policemen - or politicians - doesn't mean that they can't break a few laws sometimes.
Who knows, I doubt it but then again it might be useful for protecting the oil pipeline to which the Russians are now partners in Afghanistan. And I'm not kidding - have a look:
http://centralasianewswire.com/Russian-TAPI-involvement-damages-Turkmenistan-US/viewstory.aspx?id=3075
All those US soldiers and - and those of other countres - are dying in the cause of furthering Russia's ambitions. Well done.
This sort of thing happened when the strikes about retirement age happened in France. According to the Telegraph, all of France was out on the streets screaming 'Anarchy' and all the schools in France had been burnt down.
I live in France, though, and noticed that these things weren't happening. All of France was not out on the streets; most people went about their business. Most people were against the strikes. And, as far as I know, only one school was set on fire, and that, the police thought, was not by the protestors, but by someone using the protests as a cover. I pointed this out in the comments section of various articles and found others doing the same. It didn't stop the paper from continuing to print that France was in flames, though.
This isn't the only example, not by far. The fact is that the Telegraph's reporters - so-called reporters - are lazy. They do very little research. They are more interested in pushing their political agenda than actually doing any real reporting. If it falls into their laps, like the expenses scandal info did, then fine, they'll print it, but otherwise... The reports want to think that their readers are too stupid to figure out what's going on, but, reading the comments for the articles, this is not the case.
The Telegraph reporters and columnists would prefer, it seems, to live in a little bubble where no-one ever questions what they write, and, if they do, the letter to the editor can just be tossed in the bin, as if it is a voice alone in the wilderness. It's for this reason, I think that the Telegraph will be moving to a subscription-only online presence in, I believe it is June.
That's why the government in the UK doesn't care about how many careers, how many lives, it destroys with CRB checks. If no British person can do the job because none of them can pass the checks, they'll just say that no British person *wants* to do the job and claim that's why they have to let more people into Britain.
'Minitel' is the word you are looking for. It's basically not used anymore in France, as far as I can tell. The service still exists, but people don't use it much, if at all. At least, that's the way it is in Lille, where I live.
Broadband is very good in France, by the way. It's not expensive and there is NO capping. None. Simple to use: just plug in the Livebox and you're away. I live in an urban area, though, and I understand that it's different in rural areas, particularly the more remote ones, but that's what you would expect.
They let the Germans walk right over them then. Turned in allied soldiers to them and everything. Not to mention that the girls - the Jerry bags as they were known then - slept with all the German soldiers.
Of course, some - who know how many - of them are descendants of the German occupiers themselves, so that may explain their spirited actions.
Paris, because she knows what occupations are about...
Calais has all sorts of problems with illegal immigrants - so-called asylum seekers - trying to get into the UK. The mayor of Calais recently said that the problem was not due to France but due to the UK: the UK should either just let these people in or change its benefits system so that these people didn't want to go there. The fact is that the UK isn't policing its borders - France is and France is paying for it.
Here's another fact for you: the French ex-pats throughout Europe go about their way quietly. They have jobs and pay taxes. When have you ever heard of the French marching through London demanding special privileges?
France is standing up for itself and its rights. As I said in an earlier post, France isn't breaking the law. The law clearly states that if someone lives in a European country for more than three months without a visible means of support, then that person can be deported back to his country of origin. This law is the same throughout Europe. The UK itself could do this if it wasn't so busy bending over backwards for every minority group.
I live in France. Since the clearances began, the streets have been free of Rom women using their children as begging bowls, of Rom women shoving everyone aside so that they can get on the tram, of fat Rom women sitting on the pavements shouting insults at anyone who doesn't give them money.
Despite the cries of the liberal media, France is not breaking the law. The law is clear that anyone in the EU who lives in a country for longer than three months and has no visible means of support can be deported back to his country of origin. The liberal media screams about 'targeting groups'. Well, what else can one do since the Roms *as a group* fit the definition of people who can be deported?
You might also want to think about the fact that the majority of people in France support the expulsion of the Roms. They also support the Burkha ban. The liberal press, however, is only interested in democracy when it agrees with its ideology.
I'm glad to live in a country that is starting to stand up against politically-correct do-gooders. It's one of the reasons I left Britain.
But I'll tell you what, any do-gooders here who support the Roms should invite them to their house.
You know the 'To hell with democracy, Islam will rule the world' types. It would have made the news if Rackspace had shut such sites down, so I don't think it has. 'Hate speech', after all, only applies to those who are not part of the 'diversity'.
I read French, too. While most of those making comments were only interested in joking around, two were interested in the women's origin. One wrote of the problem caused by open borders and the other pointed out that the women were no doubt gypsies.
And indeed, the gypsies, or Roms as they call them here in France, are causing quite a bit of trouble, especially as of late. At least the government here is talking about doing something about them. The UK government, no doubt, would be talking about giving them hugs or something equally politically correct.
/QUOTE
They suggest that a small minority of officers see the law as being "what they say it is", and these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between.
QUOTE/
While I agree that there are police willing to take their chances, I suspect that it isn't a small minority and they're not doing it because they don't think they will be caught. They don't care whether they are caught because they know that nothing, absolutely nothing, will happen to them if they are. After all, since the police can get away with murder...
There is no rule of law in Britain anymore. The law is whatever the police say it is. The law is whatever some bureaucrat says it is. The law is whatever some security guard says it is. The law is whatever HMRC says it is.
Leave, live with it, or revolt: those are the only three choices you have. I left because I'm not willing to fight for chavs and the spineless middle class. I predict that people will decide to put up with this outrage, as they have done so many times before.
Britain, in my opinion, is doomed.
So, what you are saying is that you *do* accept censorship, but only if done by private companies. So if the South African government contracts out censorship to privately-owned companies, say, ISPs, then you would be happy with that. The South African government could just secretly pay the ISPs to censor or overtly make it clear to them that they (the ISPs) will be held responsible for any porn that finds its way to, say, the eyes of children. Something like that.
Censorship is censorship. It does not have to be overtly ordered by the government. Why do you think the Reg censors its forums? The libel law in the UK? Various 'hate crime' laws? Political correctness? Worry about some law that might be enacted in the future?
As I said before, since you are posting here, you have accepted censorship. You've blindly accepted it, too, because as far as I know, the Reg has never explained why it moderates its forums.
What you are really saying is that you are comfortable with there being some sort of *appearance* of free speech in a country, but free speech doesn't really have to exist, you just *want* to think it is possible. You just *want* to think, in some sort of abstract way, that you have that right and that others in some country you probably know little about and probably have never visited have that abstract right.
South Africa has changed its mind, redefined 'information' or whatever. Do you think any other African countries are going to do anything about it? Anything at all? As I said before and will say again, South Africa is a sovereign nation and can do as it likes unless other countries get involved, which they won't over porn.
As for 'someone needs to call them into account' - ha! Why? What is so sacred about porn? What is so sacred about the commercialisation of sex? Do you hold shares in a porn film company or something?
Why is everyone who opposes porn a 'fundamentalist nut job' or a 'control freak'? Seems to me that is just way you 'tolerance types' describe everyone who disagrees with *your* point of view: 'tolerate what I tolerate or I will brand you intolerant'. Yes, you are definitely for freedom: any colour as long as its black.
And as for being against the restriction of rights, you aren't. None of you who post here are. This is a *moderated* forum and it informs you of that each and every time you submit a comment. Moderation is just another form of censorship. You have, all of you, accepted the principle of censorship so we are, indeed, just arguing about *what* can be censored.
You can comment about what other countries do all you like, if your country permits it, but, in the end, countries are sovereign nations. That means that they can do as they like unless other countries get involved. Do you think anyone is going to start a war over porn? Or even some other diplomatic effort of some sort? Get real.
Censorship is an *internal* matter for South African. You don't like it? Then don't visit South Africa, and don't buy goods made there. But don't act as if South Africa *can't* censor porn. It can. Don't act as if there is some higher right that says it can't. There isn't any such right.
And yes, censorship of porn will be popular with some people, maybe many people, maybe even the majority of people in South Africa. Not everyone agrees with the West about porn. Not everyone sees sex as something to be commercialised.
The funny thing is that the people opposed to my comments are probably the same people who are all for 'diversity'. 'Diversity': everyone can have his own opinion as long as it is politically-correct. Everyone can be 'diverse' as long as they do and think the same things.
And as for a European nation killing an unpopular group, disappearing them, whatever, well, if no other country cares, and if it stays an internal matter, then that is what will happen. And so what? This is the way it has always been. Even if the world had a single ruler, do you think it would be any different? It's not as if the politically-correct aren't willing to destroy people - take away their livelihoods, bar them from society, imprison them - for simply saying things with which they don't agree. Do you think pretending these things won't happen if everyone embraces porn or whatever else *you* want them to embrace will change things?
Sovereign nations mean sovereign policies. I don't recall there being a universal right to view pornography or anything else. This human rights stuff only works if everyone accepts it, which everyone does not.
Really, is this the business of anyone but those living in South Africa? You don't want censorship of porn in the UK or wherever you are, fine, work against it *there*. You don't like South Africa's policy? Don't visit South Africa. Don't buy goods from South Africa. But don't sit there and say that there is some law above that of nations and make it so that law is always one that just happens to fit *your* sensibilities. Others don't agree. Did you ever think that such censorship might be *popular* in South Africa?
In the end, unless you are going to take over the world, then you are going to have to accept that other nations will do things differently, things you might not like.
It depends on the time period in which the drinks are consumed and whether the drink accompanies a meal.
Here's a real life example. I live in France and last time I went out to a restaurant with my husband and a friend, we consumed 5 glasses of wine each in a sitting. There was the apéritif, three glasses over the course of the meal and one with dessert. That's over the course of three hours, consumed with a full meal. None of us were even slightly inebriated at the end of the evening. That's what we typically have when we go out, which we do regularly.
This is very different from going out to the pub and swallowing as much as what it takes to get totally wasted.
Reading the report, it is just another nannying document angling to get more warnings on alcohol and to reduce the targetting of alcohol adverts to youth. The definition they gave to binge drinking is just a means to this end.
I did and I have never regretted it. My husband and I have a growing collection of manga and BD (band dessinée, that is, comic strip books). It's so widely available and popular here that I can't imagine anyone trying to ban it.
There's even a station dedicated, among other things, to Japanese culture. I would tell you the name of its web site, but I won't in case there are any pictures of manga or even Japanese girl pop bands there (many of the girl bands dance about in school uniforms with short skirts). Even my copy of the anime Windy Tales, a mild and quirky set of tales about Japanese school girls who discover that their maths teacher has the power to control the wind, would probably be dangerous in Britain just because of the short length of the girls' skirts.
There is no way I will give up my collection so it's goodbye to Britain forever. Which means that Britain is also missing out on the 40% rate income tax it used to collect from us, not to mention council tax, road tax, VAT, etc.
I recommend that everyone with any brains leaves Britain. Let them have their puritain paradise and then let them figure out how the chavs and other idiots are going to fund it.
I'm not really fond of China, but I like Google even less. The fact is that Google censors searches all the time. Remember the story about 'Islam is'? China, at least, is upfront about what it is doing. Google just blames its algorithm, as if it somehow got that way by magic.
So what if Google had some of its intellectual property stolen by someone who may or may not be connected with China? Look at what Google has tried to do with sleazy little backroom deals: steal people's copyrights for books that are merely out of print, however that is defined.
China can at least run its economy, while Google can't even make its searches work for newsgroups anymore.
Here's a word in your ear, Goggle: China is a sovereign nation. That means that it can set the rules in its own country. You don't get to set the rules from your cozy little offices and impose them on the world. You don't own the world. And don't go on about unelected officials. Tell me, who elected you?
If Google falls in China, maybe it will fall in another country next. I hope so. I use AltaVista for my searches, so I won't miss it. I buy actual maps, you know, on paper, so I won't miss it. I don't need its so-called services. I'll be glad when it is dead and buried.
Ha, ha, ha! Do you think anything any MP says right before an election means anything? Sure, they'll tell you that they will protect your liberties the day before you vote and the day after, they'll vote to have CCTV cameras installed in everyone's house 'for the children'.
Yes, MPs will attempt to 'send a message'. They will play their lyres while Rome burns. Oh, and they'll continue to collect their salaries and expenses while all around them collapses.
Don't kid yourself. The only thing that is going to change things is the guillotine.
And here I was thinking all the news was going to be gloom and doom today.
I don't read these so-called newspapers anyway. I wouldn't even print out the stories for composting. So now the entire world can join me in ignoring Murdoch's propaganda rags.
I'm off to open a bottle of wine.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
