meta meta meta comment
i am commenting on a comment about a comment about comments
oh so post mo
67 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Aug 2007
firstly, i would like to state that i am not for censorship but i am also not for degradation of any human being, male or female.
secondly, ian makes a valid point in some respects, however i don't think the issue in this context is one of violence in and of itself, but of the relationship of violence to sex. to generalise, violence is an impersonal, brutal, essentially male characteristic. to generalise once again, sex (usually) involves two partners of opposite gender participating in a mutually respectful and loving act. it would seem to me that the truly shocking thing about rape is the combination of these two fundamentally incongruent behaviours: violence is (generally speaking) in diametric opposition to (normal, loving) sex and vice versa. it is this inherent symbolic incompatibility that causes our revulsion. the same could be said to be true of paedophilia: two diametrically opposed ideas, when mixed together, have the ability to deeply offend our moral sensibilities and beliefs of what is 'normal' and therefore, acceptable. the meaning individuals may ascribe to these symbols and their subsequent compatibility may depend entirely on the culture in which the individual exists.
an excellent example has been made above regarding the public display of females' legs in many islamic societies aroudnt he world, today: compare the 'outmoded' islamic fashion for women wearing the hijab/niqab with victorian britains's attitude to public displays of any female flesh. so severe were the victorians, that only 100 years ago people were covering the legs of their own dining tables with lace doilies, lest men get excited by pieces of carved wood. these both seem unthinkable to us now but fashion, culture and morality are merely different faces of the same coin - we should not be so ready to judge others by our own fleeting standards.
although deep down humans may share an innate sense of 'good', one must remember that what seems culturally abhorrent to one group may not be seen to be so to another and for a group from outside one culture to preach tolerance on one hand, whilst attempting to enforce conformism with the other should make us wary of such peoples' motives. this should be especially true when the subject matter is nothing more than a product of the imagination. yes, this sort of material may well attract a certain type of person. but if the question is "is it wrong to pretend to sexually assault a person who exists only in the imagination?", i would submit that the culture posing the question should look at itself very deeply first, before passing judgement on the other, particularly when those under review belong to a culture not only much older, but also very different from their own.
thirdly, it is interesting that those comments above with names supplied are made exclusively by males. a female point of view would provide excellent balance.
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
I met someone recently that came back with powdered raven - as in the bird - from her homeopathist. I had a good laugh at that, particularly when she was asked what condition it was for. The answer? "Ummm, I'm not really sure".
And yes, it really was powdered corvus corvax: http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/birds.html
I wasn't even sure that kind of thing was legal.
"I often see Jesus’ face in a lot of things I do"
Almighty Jah is trying to tell this lady something. I wonder what it could be? My advice to all: you can only ignore prophetic truths like this for so long.
Also, I seem to remember seeing The First Coming represented in toast format on this site in the not so distant past. Could these two events be related?
Think about it. Browned Hovis. Marmite. In the Shape of the Face of the Son of God. A New religious festival is henceforth born: Yeaster. THE COMMERCIAL POSSIBILITIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR NEAR LIMITLESS EXPLOITATION.
Get To It, People.
"Anyone using the card to identify someone is advised to flick the card to check how it sounds"
Anyone that says government IT projects are a waste of money is a born cynic. I applaud the government, David Blunkett and Jacqui Smith in particular, on their continuing success with this project. I wish them strength in their tireless fight to improve our collective safety, for which we should all agree that no price is too high.
More of this great work, please!
I'm a nice guy! If the end of civilisation is necessary for me to secure a mate, those fools can go killing all day long, as far as I care.
I do have one teensy niggle, however: now I have this knowledge, does wishing for the end of society as we know it mean that I'm not a nice guy any more?
The Lathe of God, by Ursula Le Guin. Great novel, but according to some so-called "psyentists" is not really based on actual Psyence: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17022-can-internal-brain-music-be-used-in-therapy.html
Furthermore, the actual sounds used in these recordings is just a piano synthesizer. I don't know how much information they're actually encoding from brain waves in the music, but it's clearly not frequency data and therefore, can't leave these pseuds a whole lot left to work with. However, if you got the money, I will believe anything you want me to tell you to believe.
I call shenanigans.
"That way, if customers are tempted to adopt open source development tools, databases, and applications, they can still deploy on a cheapo, barebones version of Windows"
I'm sure this is a Good Idea in Principle but I don't see how it's going to Make Anything Easier or Cheaper. I think you are just using this OPEN SOURCE EXCUSE to satisfy your Lust For Shiny Box. Even a child knows that Anything Worth Having Is Never Free! How stupid do you think I am?
two approaches to problem solving:
solution 1 (ideal): identify cause of problem. find solution.
solution 2 (jacqui smith): worry about cause a bit, then realise problem is a toughie. proceed to make just enough noise to drown out said problem for time being. wait for new challenge.
Tram 1 - 0 Puma
Bus 1 - 0 Puma
Lorry 1 - 0 Puma
Bedford Rascal 1 - 0 Puma
Estate 1 - 0 Puma
Saloon 1 - 0 Puma
Hatchback 1 - 0 Puma
Milkfloat 1 - 0 Puma
Honda Goldwing 1 - 0 Puma
BMW C1 1 - 0 Puma
Raleigh Mustang - results tbc - Puma
Hm. Mine's the one with rollbars.
doctor computer is still just a symbolic processing feedback mechanism, albeit quite a complex one. it won't be coming up with it's own ideas any time soon because the machine doesn't know it is a machine and is, therefore, unaware of its own existence. we have nothing to worry about... for the time being.
i chose paris, but an anna nicole smith icon may have represented a better metaphor for professor silicon.
From the Beeb:
'BBC political correspondent, Gary O'Donoghue, said a source told him Ms Smith was "livid and shocked" when she found out about the films.
Mr O'Donoghue said he was told Ms Smith had given her husband a "real ear-bashing".'
When I heard about this in the pub yesterday, I laughed so hard I spilt my beer. But I've been thinking... Is a real ear-bashing a balanced, reasonable reaction to discovering that your husband has watched a couple of movies in his own home? Does livid and shocked sound a bit like an over-reaction to this news? Livid and shocked is maybe what you'd be if you asked your spouse to mow the lawn whilst you went shopping and came home to find out that he'd taken a dump in the pond, gone down the pub by himself and left the children alone with your wardrobe, a can of spray paint and a tube of superglue. It's no great newsflash that men watch pr0n every so often, so this righteous indignation of Smith's is just a bit too over the top to be believable.
Besides, the actual content of these films is totally irrelevant. Her husband holds no public office and has every right to watch whatever the hell he pleases, whenever he should so choose. The real issue (Smith is a lying, hypocritical thief) is being veiled by the more 'shocking', media-friendly sound bite: New Labour ministers won't tolerate their spouses watching pr0nography and they will get very, very angry if they ever pertain to any expression of sexuality, even in the privacy of their own home.
What kind of message does that send to the balanced, tolerant society that our government claim to be building? Should all the wives of this country follow Jacqui's lead and expose their husbands in public for watching the odd adult film? Or is the message that one shouldn't enjoy sex any more? Or maybe that one shouldn't watch movies when the Home Secretary isn't also in the room? Or is the message that, wherever possible, you should lie through your back teeth so the tax payers will be stump up for your cable TV? (presumably, the answer is 'yes', as long as they don't find out)
Jacqui's been caught thieving and is doing the cowardly thing of trying to make it somebody else's fault. It beggars belief that we continue to tolerate a Home Secretary whose moral standards are so deeply corrupt that she will even attempt to ruin her husband's reputation in order to save her own, miserably blighted career.
The sound bites don't add up, and the foetid reek of spin clouds this whole affair. I feel nothing but pity for the poor git that married this bilious wretch. We should all dump her.
"What's still unclear is whether those who download the Fluendo and Cyberlink codecs are allowed to use them, and whether Fluendo and Cyberlink can actually pass on their rights."
Eh? The codecs cost £25/€28. Does the above sentence mean that, even though you pay for the codecs, you still don't have the required license to use them? Surely not...?
I was arguing against someone the other day who said we should 'just dump the paeds in the North Sea', and this latest proposal seems about as rational. I have no great love for them (!) but this latest rubbish HO initiative has nothing to do with the danger an individual represents to society or his or her rehabilitation.
a: "The problem is there has been a lack of good data on its effectiveness"
What he means is, there is a lack of data proving polygraphs to be effective. There's loads of data, it just proves the exact opposite of what he wants. Shame on you, prof. Sociology might have taught you stats but it is clear in this case that understanding doesn't necessarily follow from learning. That, or you know you're in the wrong.
b: "Offenders who refuse to submit to the programme will violate their licence conditions and be sent back to prison"
This sentence actually reads: "Submit to this ritual humiliation or we punish you some more, whether you did it or not."
This latest scam is obviously the deformed brain-child of someone in Whitehall with no real ideas but quantifiable objectives to achieve for the minimum amount of cash, viz. more rehabilitated paeds, reduced prison crowding and a whole glut of Daily Mail sponsored votes in time for the next election.
As long as the statistics go up or down by the right amount, you can have a winning career in government (and of course, if the stats don't go your way, you should have used a more ambiguous test).
Mine's the one with the MiniLuv work request in the pocket.
Amen, amen. Lo and thus it came to pass that the Young did Replace the Old. Hark ye, the News; a Sad Demise, yes; IE6, whose Extended Service Pack Release Schedule will not have been ENTIRELY IN VAIN, though its Days are now Indeed Finite and Readily Enumerable... But Witness and Wonder on this New Phoenix, Born from the Ashes to Save Our Desktops from the SCOURGE of TAN HACKS and various MARGIN BUGS and DODGY HEIGHT RULES to bring Balance To The InterTubes, etc. blather, rhubarb, whatever.
But uh, hold on... Haven't we heard this before? Didn't they say that IE7 was gonna be all about standards and shit? And didn't they ALSO say that about IE6?
YES, THEY DID. they TOTALLY TOTALLY did.
They said IE7 would be more standards compliant but it was still crap. Instead, they gave you a bit better than IE6 mode and IE6 mode. Now, apparently, we get a bit better than IE7 mode but ALSO IE7 mode AND IE6 mode free into the bargain. and extra mode to code for! O larcky larcky us. How does this make things better? It just means we have to discover more new hacks every few years and write even more useless code.
And you think IE6's days are numbered? Are they f***. How many corporate internets run IE6 only software. Truck loads, that's how many. I remember people saying IE6 was on its way out 3 years ago when IE7 came out as everyone would get the Windows Update. Complete BS. I remember people saying that about IE5 EIGHT years ago and it was still registering hits last year, NO LESS!!
And now? IE6 is still the 3rd biggest browser with ~20% of the market and we'll still be writing code for that heap of sh*t in 3 years to come, mark my words. IE6 is a F*CKING VIRUS and will be on the Internet as LONG AS THERE IS ONE.
W*nker$ always f*ck it up, don't they? It's like they do it ON PURPOSE to PISS ME OFF.
"Not only does Taser provide a less lethal alternative to firearms but it provides confidence and reassurance to officers when confronted with volatile situations."
I think the IPCC misunderstand the definition of alternative. From the Collins Dictionary tells it thusly:
1. a possibility of choice between two or more things,
2. either or any of such choices,"
Viz, an alternative is a choice between one or more things. As cops do not currently carry firearms into non-lethal situations, this is no alternative. It is a choice by the IPCC to increase their powers of physical intimidation over the public. When public confidence in the police to make the correct decisions based on law is at an all time low, I think this is a pretty short sighted move, transparently designed to curry favour with rank and file coppers.
Do the IPCC really see the public as an entity to be subdued?
If the IPCC want more support from the public and greater confidence in dealing with volatile situations, they should consider the following:
1) How trust is gained,
2) How fear is promoted,
3) If their ultimate goal is security for their members or public confidence, and
4) Who pays their wages
the reason that any large scale project like this will never work (be it public or private) is because the employees
a) aren't held responsible
b) don't own it
the systematic results of this are:
1) the employees don't care as much as they might
2) mistakes happen more frequently and don't get corrected when they are discovered
the article demonstrates precisely these points, viz. someone didn't care to check their facts, followed procedural guidelines on assumption and, as a result, a perfectly acceptable system was blacklisted. kudos to the astute aussie for the exposure.
in this particular case, however, it is all parenthetical if you believe that adults are capable of making their own moral judgements (in my book, that is a good part of the definition of the status).
I sent this letter to the BBC first thing this morning:
"I'm saddened by the BBC's apparent complete lack of comprehension of the issues at stake in this report. The clear implication in the latest Click report is that you think breaking into and entering people's personal computers is acceptable behaviour, as long as your actions are benign in nature. The claim that the Click programme was not breaking the law because there was no criminal intent simply doesn't stand up; unauthorised computer usage is not treated in the same manner as trespass under UK law. You do not need to be of criminal intent, you merely need to be executing programs on a computer to which you do not have authorised access. See the Computer Misuse Act 1990, section 1.1:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
This comes with a maximum sentence of six months and a fine of up to £5,000.
Should you require a real world example, there is a current case (of which I should not need to remind Click) in which a UK citizen is due for extradition to the U.S. to face a military tribunal for alleged hacking offences. His defence bears remarkable similarities to that claimed by Click - yet the UK government has no hesitation in sending him off because he broke the law and is not above it. As a hacker, it doesn't matter what colour of 'hat' you are wearing or what your motives are; if you access any computer without authorisation you're breaking the law and are liable for prosecution.
Furthermore, the activitites in which Click has engaged will do little to further the real cause of computer security, but will certainly put money into the pockets of the criminals (£5,000 by my reckoning) that the real professionals are trying to stop.
I would advise anyone that has received an email from the BBC informing them of the risk posed to their computer, to speak to a solicitor and consider filing charges. I would remind the BBC that no organisation or individual has the right to behave like this, for the purposes of exposure or otherwise."
Just beggars belief. I'd like to know exactly who was their legal counsel and why they're still in a job. So, so cavalier and naive.
I smell paradox.
A) We did not do anything illegal
B) We are hiding the name of a responsible individual from the law enforcement agencies
C) Universe implodes
Shitsacks. But then, if you've ever met a Russian copper, you'll know how it works over there.
"Grakhdanskii. Dai mne svoi telefon ili vy budete v tyurme."
at uni, i got very drunk on a regular basis because it was cheap and i could, no other reason. i was very immature and stupid, like most of the other young men around me. i always assumed the girls at uni got smashed to get over the fact that all the men around them were complete idiots, rather than thinking it made THEM more attractive to US. if that's the case, it's a pretty sad fact.
alien coz young men are in bars and young women want... no, i won't finish that.
"Swain predicted more entry level jobs would be offshored in 2009"
i wrote a big rant about government blah blah blah but frankly, whatever i could have written here would just sound tired. i'm grateful to still be employed and i feel for the would-be hard working kids trying to make a start of it.
of course, wildly high specs are not necessary for word processing. but that's the whole point of having a proper computer, as opposed to a starwriter - i mean netbook - it's general purpose. it does loads *more* shit (sic) than just word processing. you want the specs for video editing, games, all that. oh, and coz dixons sold you a bundled copy of vista that chews your ram like it was addicted.
the reason the computer subsidy thing hasn't taken off yet is not because it's a bad model, but because it's crap value. let's face it - you have to be pretty short on smarts to sign up to the pc world plan that gives you a £400 acer and capped 3g (data only, kidz) for £40 a month when you could get a £600 iphone and unlimited 3g for £30 - and that's at o2 monopoly prices!
people like schmidt don't really care whether we go cloudy or not, what they really want are new markets. in which case they should offer a decent deal and some decent kit without the restrictive licensing agreements of which most tech biz knobs seem so terribly fond.