We want to stop this falling into the wrong hands...
... ie anyone but ours...
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
As always, the Government reaches for the big Ban Hammer, trying to solve a "problem" by hitting it with an unnecessary, unworkable and unneeded law that will do nothing to protect children, but makes for good headlines in the right-wing media.
There is no way to stop access to adult content, not even with a Great Firewall of Britain (even though, I'm sure the Government would love this...) so the sensible way to deal with the issue is to *educate* children about this stuff before they see it, either by looking for it themselves or their schoolmates shoving a mobile phone under their nose and saying "look at this!"
Of course this will outrage the Mary Whitehouse brigade and other such moralistic prigs who believe that children shouldn't know anything about sex, which makes as much sense as thinking that if you don't teach them about swimming, they won't go near the water and risk drowning...
> a tetrahedron sounds good to nerds it doesn't look very impressive in the flesh.
They also dropped the idea because people would make associations with Pyramids (even though they're not the same as a tetrahedron has a triangular base and a pyramid has a square base, but most people wouldn't appreciate the difference!)
> It is debatable whether a human could withstand the vacuum of space, as Bowman does, even for a few seconds.
"In a pair of papers from NASA in 1965 and 1967, researchers found that chimpanzees could survive up to 3.5 minutes in near-vacuum conditions with no apparent cognitive defects, as measured by complex tasks months later."
Clarke used this as the basis of his short story "Take a Deep Breath".
He was also annoyed that he wasn't on set when Kubrick shot the scene of Bowman triggering the explosive bolts on the Pod because Bowman holds his breath which is precisely what you should *not* do as the air will expand and rupture the lungs.
What he should have done was to open his mouth and breathe out as much as possible instead.
When 2001 was first released it was panned by the critics.
Kubrick commented that they were probably so used to watching films written for 12 year old minds that they'd probably developed 12 year old brains.
But, hey, you just watch the bang and flashes and excitement and perish the thought that you might actually have to think whilst watching a film instead of having it spoon-fed to you...
Yes, there was another version of HAL on Earth:
* * * * *
X-ray delta one, this is Mission Control.
Roger your one-niner-three-zero.
We concur with your plan to replace unit to check fault prediction.
We advise you that our preliminary findings indicate that your onboard is in error predicting the fault. l say again, in error predicting the fault.
l know this sounds rather incredible, but this conclusion is based on the results from our twin.
We're skeptical, and we're running cross-checking routines to determine reliability of this conclusion.
Sorry about this little snag. We'll get this info to you as soon as we work it out.
X-ray delta one, this is Mission Control. Two-zero-four-nine.
* * * * *
PS There's also a version of the original script online which had planned to have a narrator for the prehistoric Earth sections and contained the explanation for why HAL behaved as he did.
> The USB stick would contain some large number of 1-time use numbers that could be used at a site requiring age-verification.
And then dodgy market traders will start selling copies cheaper than official ones, but, for all you know, they may have malware or spyware loaded onto them...
Meanwhile, of course, everyone else has to go into a shop and say to the assistant "excuse me, can I buy a porn card, please..."
Remember all the sniggering when Firefox et al introduced "Private Browsing" and people were going "Hah, we know that's really porn mode..."?
> It will allow face-to-face age verification to be completed at the point of sale.
And the kids who are 16 or 17, but *look* 18 will be able to make money buying porn cards for their younger mates...
1) What kind of argument is that? It's not about protecting adults, but checking users are adults.
A very good argument against censorship. I don't have children. No children have access to my computer, why should *I* have to prove that I am an adult to access legal material in my own home?
I am not the parent of your children. The responsibility for protecting those children lies with you, not me.
"Think Of The Children" is not a good argument for anything!
2) I'd hope we agree it's not a great idea for pre-pubescent children to be exposed to hard-core porn, or to explicit sexualisation in any sense.
Do you read the Daily Mail a lot?
Here's a bit of history: For the vast majority of the existence of the human race, entire extended families, fathers, mothers, children, grandparents and maybe even aunts and uncles lived together in *single* room dwellings. Do you think mummy and daddy got all the kids out when they wanted to make a new baby? Of course not.
Also, don't forget that, in agricultural societies, kids would be perfectly familiar with where piglets and lambs and calves came from and how. So the idea that children would somehow be irreparably damaged by images of sex is complete nonsense.
Back in the present day, what we *SHOULD* be doing is teaching children proper Sex and Relationship Education, not the coy, embarassed, Daily Mail pleasing rubbish they get at the moment and that *includes* an understanding that porn is not a "how to" guide, any more than cartoons or movies are representations of real life.
(PS Oh and please look up the difference between "refute" and "reject"...)
> The problems incumbent on the Netherlands attitude towards legalising prostitution are linked with this in a significant manner
Try talking to sex workers and you'll find that they DO NOT want prostitution to be "legalised", they want it to be *DECRIMINALISED*.
Legalisation just turns the Government and Police into Pimps, giving them the right to tell sex workers what they can do and when and how and with whom and then interefere in private matters on the spurious grounds of "checking licences" or "safety inspections" etc.
In the Amsterdam, "Window Girls" already have a stringent set of regulations they have to obey, but now the authorities are trying to introduce more restrictions, very possibly in an attempt to "gentrify" the Red Light area. What this does, of course, is force the women out of there and into areas which may well be *less* safe.
Sex workers just want the protections that all other workers enjoy, the right to be treated fairly, the right to be protected from assault or intimidation, the right to choose how and where and when they offer their services and to whom and, importantly, work together and employ security staff for their own protection *without* being accused of "running a brothel" or the security staff being called pimps.
PS In other forms of work, workers have people who manage their money and find them employment. In music and acting, they're called Agents...
Ah, yes, good old Operation Ore.
Anyone who'd used their card to access adult services was automatically considered to be downloading child porn and the Police were basically telling them "Look, you have a choice, accept a caution and we'll drop this now or we'll drag you through the courts and ruin your life and your career and your reputation, even if (or when) you're found not guilty".
Of course they didn't mention that these people would also end up on the Sex Offenders Register which would, in itself, have a knock-on effect in the future. But why should the Police care? They could say to the media "Look, we've arrested X many child pornographers, aren't we great?!"
First of all you're conflating entirely separate issues here.
Mechanisms like Age Verification will affect *everyone*, whether or not they have children, and remember the majority of households in this country *don't* have children, so why do we all have to be "protected" from this stuff?
Secondly, the idea that porn is "harmful", cf the American States who are claiming it's a "Public Health Crisis" is nonsense. Provided kids are taught respect and consent from an early age and understand that porn is not a "how to" guide (cf the Netherlands) there's much less of an issue with sexual offences or, indeed, teenage pregnancy.
Thirdly, your statement of getting the next generation "hooked" seems to be based on the claim that porn is "addictive", yet proper scientific studies have shown that "porn addiction" doesn't exist, the effects of porn are nothing like the effects of drugs.
So the idea that porn producers have some sort of nefarious designs simply does not stand up to scrutiny, they simply want to get on with being allowed to distribute adult material to consenting adults and let *parents* be responsible for bringing up their children and preventing access to adult material.
And yet the Netherlands begins Sex and Relationship Education in primary school, but *they* don't have problems, because they've not been brought up with the "think of the children" and "sex is wrong outside marriage" BS that the Mary Whitehouse Brigade have tried to force on us all.
> I don't recognise its so-called 'legality'.
Fortunately we don't have to rely on *your* personal preferences to decide what *we* are allowed to see.
Meanwhile, consider this quote from Myles Jackman, Human Rights Barrister:
"Pornography is the canary in the coal mine of freedom of expression".
Or, to paraphrase Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the pornographers..."
The Internet has the capability to be the greatest opportunity for freedom of expression ever, but this, of course, terrifies authoritarian regimes, who are doing their utmost to control it using "think of the children" and similar specious arguments to justify their oppressive laws.
Naturally, once such laws are in place, it is easy to add a bit of Function Creep and start blocking other "unacceptable" material.
But, of course, I have no doubt you're just someone else who thinks that "Freedom of Expression" means "Freedom to say the things I approve of..."
... the Digital Economy Act is also supposed to deal with online copyright violations, but Mindgeek are one of the most notorious purveyors of material ripped off from pay sites, then uploaded and distributed for free, whilst they cash in on the adverts which appear alongside it!
"That kind of threat is usually called blackmail, and it's not necessarily a threat at all "
Really? There are sex workers who have been forced to move home by landlords who have found out what they are doing and demanded free sex. Even worse, some landlords are now offering "sex for rent" to vulnerable tenants who can't afford to pay or find other places to live.
Similarly there been people sacked from jobs because some prodnose has decided to "out" them to their employers (even if the person is no longer actively working in the sex industry).
However the number of actual examples of sex workers being convicted of blackmail of their clients over the past few years can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
The Leeds Tolerance Zone operates with Police knowlege, however the BBC 3 "documentary" has been strongly criticised by sex workers for its allegations that most women got into prostitution because of drug habits instead of the need to make money because of government Austerity.
"...to be brought in on the Digital Economy Bill."
Because, of course, people are going to be *so* willing to sign up for that and give over their details so the government can keep track of their porn browsing and *nobody* is going to get themselves a VPN and go to sites that don't let the State snoop on them.
Meanwhile, of course, the UK's niche porn producers and independent sex bloggers are not going to end up out of business as their costs massively increase and their revenue vanishes...
> I upped my price by 5%
Presumably you're not selling something which has a lot of competition, otherwise the large sellers, who can afford to absorb the hit, will come up cheaper than you when someone selects "Price Low-High".
This creates an inevitable "Race to the Bottom" on pricing which drives small sellers out of business :-(
> 30 seconds on google found these:
And 10 seconds on google found this page:
"This informal document has been produced by the Law Commission’s Statute Law
Repeals team to answer some of the queries that they regularly receive about
alleged old laws. Most of the curiosities below have no basis in the law as it currently
stands, although a few represent the law as it used to be. This list does not purport to
be definitive, and readers should not rely on it without conducting their own research"
Many of those "silly laws" cited are urban myths, others are fundamental misunderstandings of what the law actually said.
Yes, of the ones that existed, most if not all, have been repealed now, however simply saying "we're going to get rid of two regulations for every one introduced" does not mean that the ones being got rid of are bad ones, they may simply be inconvenient (for big businesses) whilst being very good for protecting the public from dangerous products or unscrupulous business practices.
> Regulations are like code - every line of code is a potential vulnerability.
And some code is just inconvenient, like salting and encrypting passwords or preventing buffer over/under flows or requirements for documentation or making regular backups etc.
Just like all those tedious requirements for consumer safety or public health or trading standards which stop businessmen from doing what the hell they like because those bleeding heart liberals have objected to children being poisoned by lead paint or landlords having to make their buildings safe to live in or that people should have some redress if a product is faulty or dangerous...
Sure, we can get rid of *loads* of those!
I'm sure Dilbert's PHB would think that Trump's idea is a good one too...
Scene: A Civil Service office:
"We want this law"
"Fine, but you have to do a Consultation."
"Ok, do we have to pay any attention to the results?"
"No, just as long as you do it, that's fine, but if you like, you can rig the questions to make sure that it comes out in your favour."
"Great, we'll do that!"