That's why I liked watching things like Star Trek on the BBC (used to be BBC 2 at 6pm). You didn't get any adverts and so the show was 45 minutes long. Follow it up by a couple of episodes of Simpsons and you're done by 7:30pm instead of 8pm:)
Ditto for Formula One and other sport - much better on the BBC when it doesn't get interrupted by adverts (football - the real one - they chat for a few minutes of the 15 minute break because of adverts and Formula One they have to put adverts during the race).
I don't know if it is unfamiliarity with the adverts or an actual occurrence, but the few times I've watched American TV rather than UK TV then the American TV seems to have more adverts. Having said that, now that I've got Sky then watching some of the satellite channels evens the match up a bit. Maybe it was just terrestrial that had fewer ad breaks.
Does this mean we can finally get a SWF GUI builder in MonoDevelop on Linux?
I've got a couple of apps I wrote while I was using Windows and now I use Fedora Linux. The back-end library code and my newer apps that use GTK# are fine to edit in MonoDevelop, but I've got a VirtualBox install with WinXP and Visual Studio in it for now so that I can update the System.Windows.Forms layouts when I need to.
Hopefully the "API complete" also means they'll fix some of the odd rendering I've seen at times:)
Apparently it is possible, you just need to downgrade XOrg-server and downgrade mesa-libGL for now. Seems a bit of a shame when "new XOrg" is one of the features, but I've set the DVD downloading at work overnight tonight, so I'll see if it downloaded in the morning and then take the dive soon:) IIRC there was a similar situation with fgrlx drivers and AIGLX at one point where the only way to fix gtk-window-decorator in Compiz was with the F7 version of XOrg.
ATi seem to have been releasing drivers mid-month or earlier more recently, so hopefully it won't be too long until new drivers are out and hopefully they'll support the new XOrg server.
£8.18 to retrieve information? That's nothing. British Telecom wanted at least twice that from us to get a copy of a single line engineers report so that we could get the Sky TV installer to pay for the damage he did to our phone line!
Having said that, that was a charge under the Data Protection Act (where you're allowed to demand your information, but they're allowed to charge you a 'reasonable' administration fee) where as I'd expect lawyers might have had another method to get information.
I found one male-male in the big blob, but I've not spotted the other one yet.
As for the actual groupings, did anyone else notice that in all except the big huge "we sleep around a lot" map then the girls were more likely to have multiple partners? Both the two in the top-right and the star pattern that's not quite in the bottom-left have clusters around a pink blob and then mainly single partner chains from there.
Yes, there's more lone guys with two female partners, but other than that then the girls seem more likely to have had multiple partners.
You asserted "An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had.". That means training is worthless when you hand an idiot a gun. And since you don't seem to mind smart people having guns, you're also saying that training is worthless no matter what. Which is interesting since training is used to get people to make the best decision by reflex.
As to your second assumption, no. People aren't tested for intelligence when they become police or bodyguards. Their history is checked for problems. They're interviewed and checked to see if they're going to cause problems. And they'll be checked to see if they'll do what they're told. The US police pretty much only recruits from ex-military these days.
Giving guns to the police is never going to be perfect, since some of them will still make bad decisions. On the whole their training is miles ahead of anything your standard civilian would get to receive a gun license, though. If they did introduce such strict and recurring training for the general populace then there would be uproar that it would cost so much, effectively making it unaffordable for the average person who wants to "protect" himself.
I'm amused that you can't tell the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal. Since you're in the UK I'll give you a hint, the unarmed one is the law abiding citizen. Good thing you have those anti-gun laws to make you safe! From the people who wouldn't be shooting you anyway.
Say what now? I said there was a problem with escalation of weapon size. I was told there wasn't. I gave an indication of a situation where there is. What part of that has anything to do with the difference between criminals and law-abiding citizens? If you want a gun to feel safe and then everyone carries guns the the people who want to be criminals just take bigger guns and you're still weaker than them.
It's the same with knives - someone with a gun isn't going to be too worried about a knife (except at very short range) because he has decided that a knife doesn't have the edge of power over another person with a knife, so he has to have a gun instead.
Why would they worry about that? Why do you find it so hard to trust your fellow man? You act as if they're children, unable to make good decisions that make your society better. Once you assume your populace is unable to make good decisions, they become a liability. They're things that get in the way of a good society.
As clichéd as it is to quote a movie, it's because "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." A specific person I might trust, but the population as a whole I don't. It's an inherent trait of humanity that some people will take power and abuse it (the bully), some people will take power and do something stupid (the fool) and some people just won't be able to handle the power (the jittery). All of them are their own threat that I'd rather not have to deal with.
I see the crap they put on TV. I wouldn't trust half of the people who watch and enjoy it not to cause injury to themselves with a spoon, so I'm not going to trust them with a gun. And that's just the five mainstream channels in the UK, that doesn't cover half of the other channels you can get on Sky and the drivel they show.
See, this is a ridiculous scenario. No one "Puts up a fight" when they have a gun pointed at them except when know they're going to kill you anyway.
If you're not going to put up a fight and the criminal doesn't know you carry a gun then what's the point of carrying it? Either you carry it to use it or it is a potential liability that you're never going to use but which might make the situation worse.
Please tell me you've done *some* research on this before insisting that people should go back to the caveman days where the biggest strongest brute rules.
Where as with Windows then they can hire 100 tech support monkeys for a single bag of peanuts, as all they need to know is "read this script that says 'have you tried rebooting? It's probably something you installed. Connectivity seems fine to us. You'll need to take it back to the place you purchased it from.'" compared to actually knowing what they're doing;)
It wouldn't be surprising. I worked for Fujitsu Siemens for a while and they got paid by Microsoft to put the "Fujitsu Siemens recommends Windows XP Pro". Depending on where they put it varied the amount of money they got, so they slowly moved it from "high up the page" to "in the header".
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a similar offer here, plus another offer for selling only the Windows Eees in "select retailers".
Using that logic, Police and Bodyguards should never be allowed to carry guns.
Except that police and bodyguards are trained and vetted to a much higher degree and generally won't be idiots. It's the same with police and cars - they're given additional training to handle high-speed chases that the huge majority won't have. They also have a position of responsibility that should mean they're vetted, sensible and not your average Joe Idiot.
I have never, ever, EVER heard of this.
It's reasonably frequent over here. Home of criminal gang found and raided, weapons that are much bigger than a small pistol found, criminals carrying them because they feel the need to because other gangs carry weapons. If that filters down to the general populace then everyone will have to worry about what someone else is potentially carrying.
What criminals do is pick easier or unarmed targets, interviews with criminals confirm this.
That example is a little different to Joe Public being allowed a gun. A more relevant example is:
Assume you have a criminal individual who is mugging someone.
Assume you're in the UK and don't have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun (worst case scenario - normally it would be just physical violence or a knife) and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight, you get hit, they take your possessions, but you get to keep your life.
Assume you're now in the US and do have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight and your gun is revealed. The criminal then sees you as a real threat and so feels the gun is required as something more than a intimidating item and so shoots you. You potentially come out of it with neither possessions nor life. Alternatively you somehow manage to get your gun and shoot him, at which point the chances of a shot hitting an innocent or only wounding the criminal are significantly higher than if you didn't have a gun.
The one time I've felt most at risk in Britain has been the one time I've seen the police openly holding weapons. It wasn't even just pistols, it was body armoured bobbies with automatic rifles. The fact that the police felt the need to carry assault rifles made me feel that there was something imminently threatening. Anything that requires a gun in the hands of a trained professional isn't generally good news.
An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had. Just because people have driver's licenses doesn't mean they can drive a car safely and sensibly.
The situation with regards guns:
- UK: Criminals get illegal guns. Criminals get caught with guns. Criminals then have additional criminal charge. Guns often aren't necessary and are carried as a precaution/threat/status symbol by criminals.
- US: Anyone can have gun. Slightest provocation or indication of a threat and that person has the potential to do the stupid thing and pull their gun out (no matter what training they have - human instinct for survival is a powerful thing). Simple bag snatching potentially escalates to something much worse. People begin to feel that they need to carry a small pistol for 'safety', so criminals feel more inclined to use heavier hardware, and so the situation escalates with no real gain.
The situation with regards CCTV:
- UK: There are cameras around. They film stuff. They have operatives who are generally watching for anti-social behaviour or crimes in progress (or can be if they're paying attention and are paid enough). Criminals can be tracked and apprehended. Tracking of criminals is based on "they were wearing item X, we know this camera covers an area next to this camera, and he's moving in the same direction wearing the same clothes and looking the same so we can continue to track him while the police move in". The general populace isn't on a facial database and so can't be actively tracked to a known individual.
- US: Huge swathes of the population throw a hissy-fit at the thought of a camera. Mention of the constitution and amendments are sometimes thrown in for no discernible reason.
Maybe a lot of crimes aren't tracked so actively in the UK, but amongst the most obvious instances in recent memory where it has helped with have been James Bulger's murder and the death of Mark Speight. We also obviously see far more instances of people being tracked on CCTV in terms of bag snatchers and assaults where the control centre help direct the police than the US sees.
Should England finally move to eliminate its troubling state surveillance program?
How about "no, because it's not troubling and most of it isn't state surveillance"?
Even if the government/local councils do run some of the cameras then what the hell liberties do we lose through them monitoring the town/city centres? None.
Can they track where I go? Yes, but they need to rotate the cameras, which means they lose track of other people, and they need to follow a person between screens, which means it needs far better monitoring than we're likely to have through computerised methods, so it isn't remotely efficient to do for anyone except criminals.
Can they tell who I am? Only if they've got the photo in front of them, which is going to be because I'm a wanted criminal who they're actively tracking.
CCTV in city centres is for the tracking of criminals and criminal behaviour after it happens so that the police can follow where the person went and apprehend him. The whole "Orwellian state" is nothing but paranoid drivel.
As a Brit who has also lived in Northern Ireland, give me all of the CCTV cameras in Manchester, London, Birmingham and our other big cities as a way of tracking crime over allowing any idiot to carry a deadly weapon that he's generally probably not capable of using correctly.
Probably not. People hate speed cameras because they're too dumb to stick to the speed limit.
Speed cameras are generally at a much more accessibly height because they need to catch photos of registration plates. CCTV cameras are normally much higher up posts to stop people attacking them because they're drunk and in the city centre (or whatever).
But then law enforcement have to put in the effort to prove a warrant is required and some judge has to put in the effort of signing it. Even if it is available quickly, it's still more paperwork and delay that people will want to avoid because it's too bureaucratic.
Retroactive warrants worry me a little, though. By the time they get it then they've already done what they're wanted to do, whether the judge deemed it acceptable or not!
But the huge majority of DMCA requests are probably from corporations against much smaller companies or individuals. In that situation then the corporation bribes...sorry, pays for....sorry, 'supports', more than the target, so surely it's obvious they were guilty? Such seems to be the way of capitalism and commercialism getting involved in democracy.
My thoughts exactly. They're complaining that they're so readily revealing information in a missing person's situation, but how big would the lawsuit be if they refused to reveal the details without a warrant and someone died because of it?
People might complain about breaches of privacy, but they'll complain even more if that privacy leads to an otherwise avoidable death.
Off-topic: No, it should be "genericised" because you are making it more generic. Generized (other than being a silly American spelling with a zed) would mean you are making it more gener, whatever that is.
On-topic: The only way I can see that they're complaining is if you search for lastminute holidays or even just lastminute. You then get various holiday agents in the adverts because they are selling adverts for holidays that are available at the last minute.
While it's potentially piggy-backing their trademark, it doesn't help that their trademark isn't exactly unique in terms of holidays. "Last minute holidays" is a generic idea for holidays that are booked not long before they're taken. If they really must insist on using a phrase like that as their domain then they need to expect people to turn up on it.
Tesco is slightly different, but competition is what it's about.
No it isn't, not in the UK - that's the point, it's a photograph of someone legally performing sexual acts.
And photographs of sexual acts are generally considered pornographic by virtue of their content, so you end up with the same end result: pornographic photograph of sexual act.
If you play the "it's a minor performing sexual acts" card, that logic only works with under 16s in the UK. If you try to compare it to "doing a porn shoot", then that's a separate issue.
Not the last time I checked in the UK. Even though we don't tend to use the phrase as much, 'Minor' is normally 18. The only things that tend to be 16 are things like smoking.
I can't fathom out how that situation is irrelevant.
It's an analogy. Sex at 16 is legal, drinking alcohol with a meal is legal. But photographing sex (and making pornographic photographs) is not legal at that point, and neither is it legal for the person under 18 to buy alcoholic drinks.
If you want to complain that someone is legally old enough to do something but not legally old enough to do something related to it, why not do the same for alcoholic drinks?
And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do," but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that... ( imitates gunfire noises ) I think they should just try that, you know.
But what are the important differences between a porn shoot and shooting pornographic videos, other than quality? The audience may be smaller, but it is still a photograph of a minor performing sexual acts. It's like complaining that (in the UK) children of most ages are allowed a single alcoholic drink with a meal but they aren't allowed to buy it themselves.
European countries tendency to become communist and that scares me. I believe that only God, someone almighty, can judge one and punish one's sin.
Is that real or sarcasm? It's not registering as sarcasm, which is worrying to a Brit/European.
Given that we have a supposedly left-wing government acting as a right-wing government then how are they being Communist? They're potentially being Orwellian/Police State by banning photos that may or may not be of consensual acts that don't look consensual, but that covers both the left-wing (Communists) and the right-wing (Fascists) and probably even the centre ground (Christian groups who aren't on either wing).
Yes, people make mistakes, but if there isn't a punishment for a crime other than judgement that may or may not be real (depending on your religious point of view) then what's to dissuade people? Criminals don't believe in following laws, so what's to make them believe in God and their final judgement?
I think you'll find that's the same in a lot of countries. France, Germany and other parts of Europe have a younger age of consent, but just about every nation I've heard of won't let you do a porn shoot until you're 18.
As stupid as it seems at times, there's a difference between "mature enough to have consensual sex with someone" and "mature enough to be recorded performing the act for the purposes of future arousal".
I'm on broadband (only 2Mbps, but that's fast enough for most downloads and should be plenty quick enough for most browsing) and I've noticed larger download sizes as well. In 95%+ of cases I've not noticed any particular use for the extra bloat other than "we couldn't be bothered doing it properly" or "well, people have broadband".
Excluding places like YouTube where it revolves around big content, and ignoring bloggers who don't have the sense to link to external pages for their videos and so embed a dozen videos on a page, what is the point of all the bloat? Do any of the sites need even a fraction of what they add? A few tens of KB or more for an Ajax/Lightbox/other JS library that you use one minor function from? A huge and badly optimised image? Background images that take up the whole page and aren't properly sliced to remove the bits that aren't necessary or increase the parts that can be repeated?
On the plus side then at least my sites should seem a bit faster when anyone does visit them as I don't cram pages full of crap!
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I liked watching things like Star Trek on the BBC (used to be BBC 2 at 6pm). You didn't get any adverts and so the show was 45 minutes long. Follow it up by a couple of episodes of Simpsons and you're done by 7:30pm instead of 8pm :)
Ditto for Formula One and other sport - much better on the BBC when it doesn't get interrupted by adverts (football - the real one - they chat for a few minutes of the 15 minute break because of adverts and Formula One they have to put adverts during the race).
I don't know if it is unfamiliarity with the adverts or an actual occurrence, but the few times I've watched American TV rather than UK TV then the American TV seems to have more adverts. Having said that, now that I've got Sky then watching some of the satellite channels evens the match up a bit. Maybe it was just terrestrial that had fewer ad breaks.
Does this mean we can finally get a SWF GUI builder in MonoDevelop on Linux?
:)
I've got a couple of apps I wrote while I was using Windows and now I use Fedora Linux. The back-end library code and my newer apps that use GTK# are fine to edit in MonoDevelop, but I've got a VirtualBox install with WinXP and Visual Studio in it for now so that I can update the System.Windows.Forms layouts when I need to.
Hopefully the "API complete" also means they'll fix some of the odd rendering I've seen at times
Apparently it is possible, you just need to downgrade XOrg-server and downgrade mesa-libGL for now. Seems a bit of a shame when "new XOrg" is one of the features, but I've set the DVD downloading at work overnight tonight, so I'll see if it downloaded in the morning and then take the dive soon :) IIRC there was a similar situation with fgrlx drivers and AIGLX at one point where the only way to fix gtk-window-decorator in Compiz was with the F7 version of XOrg.
ATi seem to have been releasing drivers mid-month or earlier more recently, so hopefully it won't be too long until new drivers are out and hopefully they'll support the new XOrg server.
Ah, but you can't trust that article. After all, didn't you read that CCTV doesn't work. That's why we had to wait for this article ;)
£8.18 to retrieve information? That's nothing. British Telecom wanted at least twice that from us to get a copy of a single line engineers report so that we could get the Sky TV installer to pay for the damage he did to our phone line!
Having said that, that was a charge under the Data Protection Act (where you're allowed to demand your information, but they're allowed to charge you a 'reasonable' administration fee) where as I'd expect lawyers might have had another method to get information.
I found one male-male in the big blob, but I've not spotted the other one yet.
As for the actual groupings, did anyone else notice that in all except the big huge "we sleep around a lot" map then the girls were more likely to have multiple partners? Both the two in the top-right and the star pattern that's not quite in the bottom-left have clusters around a pink blob and then mainly single partner chains from there.
Yes, there's more lone guys with two female partners, but other than that then the girls seem more likely to have had multiple partners.
There must be too many bots - I can't even get it to render! All I get is a white page with no nodes and no links :\
;) )
Either that or they've rendered the botnet on a white background in apple white with light grey lines.
(i.e. it seems to be Slashdotted
Giving guns to the police is never going to be perfect, since some of them will still make bad decisions. On the whole their training is miles ahead of anything your standard civilian would get to receive a gun license, though. If they did introduce such strict and recurring training for the general populace then there would be uproar that it would cost so much, effectively making it unaffordable for the average person who wants to "protect" himself.
Say what now? I said there was a problem with escalation of weapon size. I was told there wasn't. I gave an indication of a situation where there is. What part of that has anything to do with the difference between criminals and law-abiding citizens? If you want a gun to feel safe and then everyone carries guns the the people who want to be criminals just take bigger guns and you're still weaker than them.
It's the same with knives - someone with a gun isn't going to be too worried about a knife (except at very short range) because he has decided that a knife doesn't have the edge of power over another person with a knife, so he has to have a gun instead.
As clichéd as it is to quote a movie, it's because "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." A specific person I might trust, but the population as a whole I don't. It's an inherent trait of humanity that some people will take power and abuse it (the bully), some people will take power and do something stupid (the fool) and some people just won't be able to handle the power (the jittery). All of them are their own threat that I'd rather not have to deal with.
I see the crap they put on TV. I wouldn't trust half of the people who watch and enjoy it not to cause injury to themselves with a spoon, so I'm not going to trust them with a gun. And that's just the five mainstream channels in the UK, that doesn't cover half of the other channels you can get on Sky and the drivel they show.
If you're not going to put up a fight and the criminal doesn't know you carry a gun then what's the point of carrying it? Either you carry it to use it or it is a potential liability that you're never going to use but which might make the situation worse.
No, I think we shou
Where as with Windows then they can hire 100 tech support monkeys for a single bag of peanuts, as all they need to know is "read this script that says 'have you tried rebooting? It's probably something you installed. Connectivity seems fine to us. You'll need to take it back to the place you purchased it from.'" compared to actually knowing what they're doing ;)
It wouldn't be surprising. I worked for Fujitsu Siemens for a while and they got paid by Microsoft to put the "Fujitsu Siemens recommends Windows XP Pro". Depending on where they put it varied the amount of money they got, so they slowly moved it from "high up the page" to "in the header".
It wouldn't surprise me if there was a similar offer here, plus another offer for selling only the Windows Eees in "select retailers".
Except that police and bodyguards are trained and vetted to a much higher degree and generally won't be idiots. It's the same with police and cars - they're given additional training to handle high-speed chases that the huge majority won't have. They also have a position of responsibility that should mean they're vetted, sensible and not your average Joe Idiot.
It's reasonably frequent over here. Home of criminal gang found and raided, weapons that are much bigger than a small pistol found, criminals carrying them because they feel the need to because other gangs carry weapons. If that filters down to the general populace then everyone will have to worry about what someone else is potentially carrying.
That example is a little different to Joe Public being allowed a gun. A more relevant example is:
Assume you have a criminal individual who is mugging someone.
Assume you're in the UK and don't have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun (worst case scenario - normally it would be just physical violence or a knife) and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight, you get hit, they take your possessions, but you get to keep your life.
Assume you're now in the US and do have a weapon. The criminal threatens you with the gun and wants to take your possessions. You put up a fight and your gun is revealed. The criminal then sees you as a real threat and so feels the gun is required as something more than a intimidating item and so shoots you. You potentially come out of it with neither possessions nor life. Alternatively you somehow manage to get your gun and shoot him, at which point the chances of a shot hitting an innocent or only wounding the criminal are significantly higher than if you didn't have a gun.
The one time I've felt most at risk in Britain has been the one time I've seen the police openly holding weapons. It wasn't even just pistols, it was body armoured bobbies with automatic rifles. The fact that the police felt the need to carry assault rifles made me feel that there was something imminently threatening. Anything that requires a gun in the hands of a trained professional isn't generally good news.
An idiot is still an idiot, no matter how much training he has had. Just because people have driver's licenses doesn't mean they can drive a car safely and sensibly.
The situation with regards guns:
- UK: Criminals get illegal guns. Criminals get caught with guns. Criminals then have additional criminal charge. Guns often aren't necessary and are carried as a precaution/threat/status symbol by criminals.
- US: Anyone can have gun. Slightest provocation or indication of a threat and that person has the potential to do the stupid thing and pull their gun out (no matter what training they have - human instinct for survival is a powerful thing). Simple bag snatching potentially escalates to something much worse. People begin to feel that they need to carry a small pistol for 'safety', so criminals feel more inclined to use heavier hardware, and so the situation escalates with no real gain.
The situation with regards CCTV:
- UK: There are cameras around. They film stuff. They have operatives who are generally watching for anti-social behaviour or crimes in progress (or can be if they're paying attention and are paid enough). Criminals can be tracked and apprehended. Tracking of criminals is based on "they were wearing item X, we know this camera covers an area next to this camera, and he's moving in the same direction wearing the same clothes and looking the same so we can continue to track him while the police move in". The general populace isn't on a facial database and so can't be actively tracked to a known individual.
- US: Huge swathes of the population throw a hissy-fit at the thought of a camera. Mention of the constitution and amendments are sometimes thrown in for no discernible reason.
Maybe a lot of crimes aren't tracked so actively in the UK, but amongst the most obvious instances in recent memory where it has helped with have been James Bulger's murder and the death of Mark Speight. We also obviously see far more instances of people being tracked on CCTV in terms of bag snatchers and assaults where the control centre help direct the police than the US sees.
How about "no, because it's not troubling and most of it isn't state surveillance"?
Even if the government/local councils do run some of the cameras then what the hell liberties do we lose through them monitoring the town/city centres? None.
Can they track where I go? Yes, but they need to rotate the cameras, which means they lose track of other people, and they need to follow a person between screens, which means it needs far better monitoring than we're likely to have through computerised methods, so it isn't remotely efficient to do for anyone except criminals.
Can they tell who I am? Only if they've got the photo in front of them, which is going to be because I'm a wanted criminal who they're actively tracking.
CCTV in city centres is for the tracking of criminals and criminal behaviour after it happens so that the police can follow where the person went and apprehend him. The whole "Orwellian state" is nothing but paranoid drivel.
As a Brit who has also lived in Northern Ireland, give me all of the CCTV cameras in Manchester, London, Birmingham and our other big cities as a way of tracking crime over allowing any idiot to carry a deadly weapon that he's generally probably not capable of using correctly.
Probably not. People hate speed cameras because they're too dumb to stick to the speed limit.
Speed cameras are generally at a much more accessibly height because they need to catch photos of registration plates. CCTV cameras are normally much higher up posts to stop people attacking them because they're drunk and in the city centre (or whatever).
But then law enforcement have to put in the effort to prove a warrant is required and some judge has to put in the effort of signing it. Even if it is available quickly, it's still more paperwork and delay that people will want to avoid because it's too bureaucratic.
Retroactive warrants worry me a little, though. By the time they get it then they've already done what they're wanted to do, whether the judge deemed it acceptable or not!
But the huge majority of DMCA requests are probably from corporations against much smaller companies or individuals. In that situation then the corporation bribes...sorry, pays for....sorry, 'supports', more than the target, so surely it's obvious they were guilty? Such seems to be the way of capitalism and commercialism getting involved in democracy.
My thoughts exactly. They're complaining that they're so readily revealing information in a missing person's situation, but how big would the lawsuit be if they refused to reveal the details without a warrant and someone died because of it?
People might complain about breaches of privacy, but they'll complain even more if that privacy leads to an otherwise avoidable death.
Off-topic: No, it should be "genericised" because you are making it more generic. Generized (other than being a silly American spelling with a zed) would mean you are making it more gener, whatever that is.
On-topic: The only way I can see that they're complaining is if you search for lastminute holidays or even just lastminute. You then get various holiday agents in the adverts because they are selling adverts for holidays that are available at the last minute.
While it's potentially piggy-backing their trademark, it doesn't help that their trademark isn't exactly unique in terms of holidays. "Last minute holidays" is a generic idea for holidays that are booked not long before they're taken. If they really must insist on using a phrase like that as their domain then they need to expect people to turn up on it.
Tesco is slightly different, but competition is what it's about.
And photographs of sexual acts are generally considered pornographic by virtue of their content, so you end up with the same end result: pornographic photograph of sexual act.
Not the last time I checked in the UK. Even though we don't tend to use the phrase as much, 'Minor' is normally 18. The only things that tend to be 16 are things like smoking.
It's an analogy. Sex at 16 is legal, drinking alcohol with a meal is legal. But photographing sex (and making pornographic photographs) is not legal at that point, and neither is it legal for the person under 18 to buy alcoholic drinks.
If you want to complain that someone is legally old enough to do something but not legally old enough to do something related to it, why not do the same for alcoholic drinks?
But what are the important differences between a porn shoot and shooting pornographic videos, other than quality? The audience may be smaller, but it is still a photograph of a minor performing sexual acts. It's like complaining that (in the UK) children of most ages are allowed a single alcoholic drink with a meal but they aren't allowed to buy it themselves.
Is that real or sarcasm? It's not registering as sarcasm, which is worrying to a Brit/European.
Given that we have a supposedly left-wing government acting as a right-wing government then how are they being Communist? They're potentially being Orwellian/Police State by banning photos that may or may not be of consensual acts that don't look consensual, but that covers both the left-wing (Communists) and the right-wing (Fascists) and probably even the centre ground (Christian groups who aren't on either wing).
Yes, people make mistakes, but if there isn't a punishment for a crime other than judgement that may or may not be real (depending on your religious point of view) then what's to dissuade people? Criminals don't believe in following laws, so what's to make them believe in God and their final judgement?
I think you'll find that's the same in a lot of countries. France, Germany and other parts of Europe have a younger age of consent, but just about every nation I've heard of won't let you do a porn shoot until you're 18.
As stupid as it seems at times, there's a difference between "mature enough to have consensual sex with someone" and "mature enough to be recorded performing the act for the purposes of future arousal".
As a great thinker* once said: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do, too, brackets, if they've got a gun, close brackets." ;)
* Well, Eddie Izzard, who is very insightful for a cross-dressing comedian
I'm on broadband (only 2Mbps, but that's fast enough for most downloads and should be plenty quick enough for most browsing) and I've noticed larger download sizes as well. In 95%+ of cases I've not noticed any particular use for the extra bloat other than "we couldn't be bothered doing it properly" or "well, people have broadband".
Excluding places like YouTube where it revolves around big content, and ignoring bloggers who don't have the sense to link to external pages for their videos and so embed a dozen videos on a page, what is the point of all the bloat? Do any of the sites need even a fraction of what they add? A few tens of KB or more for an Ajax/Lightbox/other JS library that you use one minor function from? A huge and badly optimised image? Background images that take up the whole page and aren't properly sliced to remove the bits that aren't necessary or increase the parts that can be repeated?
On the plus side then at least my sites should seem a bit faster when anyone does visit them as I don't cram pages full of crap!