Posts by Graham Marsden 6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Follow this through: I already have affordable-leather.co.uk if I then register affordable-leather.xxx what's to stop someone (probably in the USA) saying "Hey, this is an .xxx domain yet they're trying to sneak one past us by having *other* versions of the *same* domain! We should make the software block *all* versions of that domain!"
Sure, it's not sensible, but that never stopped the Moral Minority, did it?
... as the cyber-squatters try to grab xxx.xxx fuck.xxx sex.xxx and so on.
Meanwhile legitimate adult (but non-pornographic) businesses like mine have to decide whether we should go for the .xxx version of our domain *as well as* the other ones we already have resulting in extra costs and possible censorship of our domain and loss of customers or not getting it and seeing someone else grab it, possibly taking custom away from us...!
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
... will whatever version of Linux I get *work* with my system!
Twenty five or so years ago when I had plenty of time to spare, I was quite happy hacking through code and using CLIs and playing with stuff just to see what happens.
Now I've got other stuff to think about, I don't have the inclination to mess around like that, so unless I can get a simple answer to "will it run the software (and hardware) on my system* without lots of hassle?" much as I'd like to try, the fact of the matter is that Windows *does* do that.
*Most used programs: Firefox, Thunderbird, Photoshop, MediaPlayer Classic, Word, Excel, hardware: USB Scanner, Epson Printer, TomTom USB interface.
Also will it read data from my windows partitions without hassle and can I use Acronis True Image to back up its partition.
I'm no fanboi of any type, just someone who has other things to use his time for, so if someone could actually tell me I'd be grateful!
Are you one of those selfish people who think that signs saying "No Mobile Phones" and "No headphones" in the Quiet Carriages on trains don't apply to you? And then get all stroppy when somone points out that sign as if the person *complaining* about the selfish idiot is doing something wrong??
It's just a shame that the Guards on these trains don't actually bother to "walk through the train" as they claim they'll be doing and do their job of telling selfish idiots to move or shut up.
"that metal thing separating you from the oncoming motorway traffic is rated to contain a 1.5 ton CAR"
And it will also do damn all to protect a motorcyclist who is liable to either slam into a solid post or slide right under it.
Of course upgrading barriers to actualy provide proper safety protectin costs money...
"britain is not free and civilized either"
I don't think the previous poster said that (or implied it), especially since Britain certainly isn't until we get rid of nonsense like the OPA, Dangerous Pictures (and Cartoons) Acts and redefine the job of the BBFC to stop being nannies who will order nasty bits of films cut out and simply *classify* the films according to content.
... the companies delete your data, but just before they do, they exercise their right to sell it to another company (which, of course, you had to agree with when you registered) and the fact that they own that company and still have full access to your data is a mere irrelevancy, isn't it...?
It would be interesting to know why my post linking to the "Mohammed Image Archive" showing that, in the past, Muslims have often depicted Mohammed was first approved and then subsequently disapproved.
Perhaps without the link the mere statement of fact will be acceptable?
Obviously you don't know what a small business actually *is* and don't realise that things like this are actually *checked*.
You also obviously don't comprehend that this is not "paying less tax" it simply allows SMEs who are having difficulties with cashflow to pay off their taxes in installments instead of having to fork out a big lump sum that would leave them unable to pay wages or buy the stock and materials they need to keep operating.
... that way the point won't be quite so far over your head.
"it seems that Joe Muslim is no happier with the lunatic fringe than anyone else. Hopefully, they can appreciate tht they are not being targetted by this."
It doesn't matter whether they are "being targetted" the fact is that they *ARE* being watched and monitored *just in case* they may be terrorists, but I'm sure your argument is "well, if they have nothing to hide..."
As for "irony and hypocrisy", again you miss the point that all those individuals who are taking photographs are not clubbing together, putting all their images on a central database and then examining them for "suspicious" or "extremist" behaviour with the intent of trying to spot anyone who might be up to no good.
Of course the fact that *nobody* might be up to no good seems to have escaped you too.
Perhaps we should all follow you with cameras and monitor your every move just to be certain that you're not breaking any laws. Still, you've got nothing to hide, have you?
... "Since 2001, over 1,200 terrorist suspect have been arrested, over 140 have been charged and more than 45 have been convicted of terrorism offences,"
So between 11 and 12 percent of people suspected of terrorism have been charged but only a third of those were actually convicted, so the success rate has been between three and four percent.
Meanwhile what has been the reaction of the other 96% or so? "Oh well, I didn't mind being arrested and having my home searched and my family and friends hassled and maybe losing my job because it was all to protect us from terrorism, so that's ok..."???
"the areas targeted by these cameras will also benefit from (hopefully) a general reduction in crime. If this also results in catching Islamic Jihadists where is the problem?"
And if stopping and searching young men for being "suspiciously black or asian" has been shown to work so well in reducing crime, where is the problem?
Well the problem is the word "IF" because, like all the photographers being hassled under Section 44 there has not been *ONE* example of a terrorist being caught, and of the many young black or asian men, the majority were not engaged in criminal activity, but there have been a *lot* of people harassed whilst going about their lawful business.
You also sneer at another poster for alleged "cheap racist accusations", but then you raise the spectre of "political correctness" when people stand up and say "No, these civil liberties are *not* negotiable, we won't give up essential liberties for a little temporary security".
As for your nonsensical claim that "if this sort of policing had taken place as a response to the Twin Towers two large scale invasions wouldn't have taken place, and indeed the Islamic communities would not now be so prone to radicalization" except that it *DID* take place and communities *HAVE* been radicalised!
But, of course, that didn't affect you, so it's not your problem, is it...?
He starts by referring to "freetards" (always a nicely unbiased term) and then refers to the "self-described software freedom activist" with the sneering implication that the FSF is just the output of a lone nutcase in his bedroom (who publishes the GPL...)
Not only that, but there's a huge "Black Helicopters" icon beside the piece just in case Mr Blincoe's implicit message is too subtle for us to understand.
He also refers to Robert Stallman's "lengthy posting", yet it's shorter than quite a few El Reg articles (was this just an attempt to deter people from actually going and *reading* what it says so they only have Robert Blincoe's take on it?)
Mr Blincoe seems to want to portray Mr Stallman's output as the rantings of an insignificant individual, for what reason I am not sure, but it is clear that his piece should have included the word *OPINION* in big letters at the top.
In the words of James D Nicholl...
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
Kids have always created their own slang, some of it may get absorbed into the language, but most of it just dies off and gets replaced by the "next thing" to come along.
Making a big deal about it just makes kids *more* likely to use it because it annoys the older generations.
Also be careful about using unravelit.com because if you make enquiries about eg insurance through their service they pass on your e-mail address and suddenly I started getting lots of spam to unravelit.com@mydomainname and, when I complained, simply said "well, sorry, it wasn't us"
I have just seen an interview with Parmjit Dhanda, the former Labour Education Minister, on BBC News 24 where he made the astonishing statements that since the scheme had already been modified this was a "knee-jerk:" reaction by the Coalition and, even more mind-boggling, that "this was a sad day for children and their parents and a good day if you were a predatory paedophile"!
Well New Labour know all about knee-jerk reactions since they made enough of them during their time of office, but to say that getting rid of a scheme that relied on gossip, hearsay and unsubstantianted accusations to make decisions and that would assume that *everyone* who wanted to educate or help children was a potential threat to them was a "good day if you were 'a predatory paedophile" is utterly beneath contempt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
