Woah! Wind your flag in komrade Owens!
22 publicly visible posts • joined 25 Jul 2007
I'm sure we're all aware that email is insecure, but do you seriously believe that journalists were packet-sniffing her office's LAN? Maybe they broke into AT&T and sniffed it in transit? Maybe they hacked into Hotmail and stole it from there.
Or maybe, just maybe, it got leaked by an insider.
You're both wrong.
"It is now becoming clear why the climate on Venus is so different to Earth" should read "It is now becoming clear why the climate on Venus is so different to the climate on Earth".
The first sentence isn't grammatically wrong, it just doesn't make a great deal of sense in the context. Maybe Anonymous Coward, if that is your real name, you should ask for a dictionary for Christmas and look up 'grammar' and compare it to the entry for 'sense of a quote in the context of a news article'.
Spleen, I'm not sure WTF you're wittering on about, but you might want to revisit your spelling of aeroplanes.
I think we can all agree that I've now settled the debate.
The point he's making is that people's attitudes to marriage change over time. I think it's perfectly fair to say that a change in acceptance to inter-racial and same-sex marriages can be compared to a change in acceptance to any other form of marriage.
If you want to take this further and suggest that ethnic minorities and homosexuals are being classed as being subhuman by being compared to robots then that's your lookout. Just because you're reading between the lines, it doesn't mean he's writing between them.
For the record, I think the guys's talking bollocks. But he should still be entitled to try and form a valid argument without being accused of homophobia and racism.
I don't see how the context in which the game is pitched will necessarily affect the influence it will have on people. Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that I know how exactly how much games influence people - I'm not a psychologist and almost certainly never will be. I'll hazard a guess that makes two of us.
I was just found it interesting that the general reaction on this site to people's calls to ban violent video games was pretty strong. However, keep the question the same but change the context slightly and the reaction is very different.
We asked 100 Reg readers if playing a drink-driving simulator would make people more likely to drink and drive. Our survey said: Yes, chavs are far too impressionable!
We asked 100 Reg readers if playing violent video games make people violent in real life. Our survey said: Don't be silly, child violence is society's fault!
My point is simply that just because danger isn't perceptible doesn't mean it is not there. I believe certain elements of the press have used this research to suppprt the belief that phone masts are necessarily safe.
But, of course, I'm sure that's flawed for so many complex and specialised reasons that I could never possibly understand.
I took a group of people and gave them a gun in which I either had or hadn't placed a live round.
When I told members of the group that the gun contained a live round, they were much more wary of it and believed it to be more dangerous.
When neither the instructor nor the participant knew if the gun contained a live round, the results showed no link between the percieved danger factor and the presence of a live round.
From this I concluded that guns containing live rounds are not dangerous.
Spot the deliberate mistake...