if each British solider were killed overnight in Northern Ireland, a substantial uproar would be caused, and there would be serious discussion of letting North Ireland separate
Erm... at the risk of stating the obvious, you couldn't really "let" Northern Ireland separate unless Northern Ireland wanted to separate. Not even the IRA claim that a majority in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, and I don't think there's any doubt that if a majority did want that then they'd have it with no need to give in to terrorists and no face lost.
and the stubborn British government (no offense intended, but most countries aren't willing to separate from a part of their country - except, perhaps Canada, who wants to get rid of the Quebecers), will not grant North Ireland independence.
I really don't think you're familiar with the issues at all. The IRA don't want "independence" for Northern Ireland, they want it to be united with the Republic of Ireland The Republic of Ireland does NOT, of course, condone the actions of the IRA). The majority in Northern Ireland do not want this, hence the problem.
You can argue quite reasonably that Ireland should never have been partitioned to begin with, that the British should have granted independence to the whole of the island in one go instead of holding a vote county by county to settle which were in and which were out but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that the population of Northern Ireland are demanding some sort of "independence" and being denied it, which simply isn't true.
Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
We're not "improved apes", we have a common ancestor with apes. Not "improved", not "better", just different. I don't see how realising that "devalues" human life but in any event, what do you suggest? Lie to each other about it and pretend we're something else?
I have no clue what MS has to do with any of this talk. People just seem to invoke the name to talk about anything bad that could happen. Please find some new evil to harp on.
You must really hate Microsoft to want to take away from them the this recognition of their success. Whatever you think of them they've worked for this; let them bask in this level of demonisation that few can attract, it won't last forever.
So no, GPL is not completely free, but it is completely fair, which BSD license is not.
I agree with you about the GPL. I don't agree that there is anything unfair about the BSD license. As long as the author chooses to grant the unrestricted rights that it entails then it is entirely fair. If the author is happy with it then who is it being unfair to? If the author doesn't comprehend then that really isn't the fault of the BSD license, it's about as clear as it can be.
The GPL could best be described as a "barter" license. Your code for theirs. But don't call it free, because you are not donating anything, you are not contributing anything, you are selling something.
This is incorrect. I agree that the GPL is not 100% free, however the vast majority of users of e.g. the Linux kernel never have to give anything in return. They can use the code for free. They can redistribute the code for free. They can even modify the code and use the resulting derived works for free. It is only if they want to make a derived work and distribute it and would otherwise have used a different licensing scheme that they effectively have to "give" something in return.
I don't think this can really be described as "selling" or even "bartering" since the author doesn't require anything back. It's a case of "you may do whatever you like except the following".
If I said "you can live on my land free of charge and do pretty much whatever you like there including invite others to do so as well just so long as you don't place any furtehr restrictions on them than I'm placing on you", would you say that I'm selling my land? Renting it out? Bartering for it? I don't think any of those would be a reasonable description. IMHO the GPL is equivalent to that.
There are far fewer restrictions than there would be under a typical software license, but obviously I agree it's not 100% free i.e. there are restrictions.
The intention is to achieve as much freedom as practical by preventing the code being used to create much less free products but allowing it to be freely redistributed and built on subject to the requirements necessary to prevent it being incorporated into less free products. You presumably feel it fails to achieve that goal or else consider the goal "silly", either way there are many of us who disagree with you.
and is a silly requirement.
People can bargain for whatever consideration they please. If you accept the right to restrict others from copying the code, which it seems you do though you haven't been entirely clear on that point, and don't like the terms then don't take the code.
As for the control thing, aren't you supposed to give ownership of a GPL'ed project over the FSF generally? (Primarily, according to them, so that they can handle any legal disputes.)
No. I believe they generally wish you to do this if you want your code to be included as part of the GNU project though.
To forestal further misunderstanding I'll point out that you can, of course, take code from the GNU project and amend it however you like without signing it over to them. They just won't include your modifications in their code base i this case.
Don't expect people's actions to necessarily match their words?
You can't please everyone?
The teachers aren't as clever as me and my dad?
You should be quiet, try to fit in and not say anything controversial or it stirs up all sorts of attention?
You should try to be different to the others and controversial, it gets you lots of attention?
People are easily upset?
If you manage to pitch your teachers and parents against each other then your parents might be extra good to you to make up for the nasty teachers and the teachers will be wary of messing with you again?
Seriously, I'm interested in knowing what lesson you feel she learned or why you're so sure it's a harsh one. I haven't read anything that suggests she came out of this badly. It's certainly possible that pleasing her teacher is more important to her than pleasing her dad, even to the point that this was a tragedy for her, but I'm not sure why anyone would just assume that that's true.
I wouldn't call it a random observation or observation OF A PROBLEM.
In the post I was responding to you said "Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays." As far as I can see you were either saying this to refute that there was a problem (i.e. since it happens a lot it isn't a problem, which as I said seems backwards, if it is a problem then it happening a lot does not improve things and if it isn't a problem then how much it happens is simply irrelevant) or you were just saying it for no reason whatsoever, i.e. a random observation. If there's some point behind the comment then what is it?
Cutting right to the chase: What the fuck kind of fascist purpose do you think the data collection is being used for?
I've no idea... I really doubt that fascists are involved though. I think you're confused.
It is being used for consumer research, for crying outloud! What else would it be used for when the majority of the WWW is focused on commerce nowadays?
Thanks for the info:) I must say I thought the majority of the WWW was rather pointless home pages that people had put up for no apparent reason but I'm sure your information is better than mine. I can't say I see the relevance though.
If you see something horribly WRONG with that, you're nitpicking
I suspect "nitpicking" is a word you only recently encountered and wanted to try out since I can't see why regarding anything as being wrong would be an example of nitpicking. If you really think I'm nitpicking then please elaborate.
and yet again, are looking for another reason to get on a soapbox and complain about some idiotically perceived injustice.
Ah, "yet again". I make a habit of that do I?
The idea of taking action with a school over the whole thing is absurd. Furthermore, put aside your childish American I'm-suing-you bullshit mentality (which is what your focus on the whole "legal liability" translates into) for a second
I think you must be confusing me with someone who has visited America at some point? Or, don't tell me, exposure to American influences over the internet and other media has "warped my fragile mind"? In any event, how does it become MY focus on legal liability? You asserted that somebody (I still don't know who) was "covered" by the contract between the school and the provider. The only thing I can think a contract could cover you against is legal action. If you were thinking of something else then please do explain.
that into consideration it's nice the school is providing connection to something as dynamically moving as the Internet in the first place -- mabye students should appreciate that for face value.
You see, you can make a reasonable point when you try:) That doesn't relate to anything in your original post though.
I don't apply that attitude to everything in life, but generally speaking you should try to accept what is unalterable. Building a strong dislike toward something does not always equal taking action when taking action is unrealistic.
All in all, you made a rather incoherent post and when questioned on the detals you have mostly responded abusively. Not everyone you encounter will agree with you or understand you for that matter. Since that's unalterable I suggest you take your own advice and try to learnt to accept it.
If you know another means for men to be ruled then it'd be interesting to hear it.
All governments rule by force, that's pretty much how you tell they're ruling rather than just making suggestions that everyone can follow or not at their own discretion.
Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays.
I'm a little confused where you're coming from with that comment. Are you suggesting that the more common something becomes the less of a problem it is (which sounds completely backwards) or was that just a sort of random observation?
Not to sound hostile, but this really sounds very petty. Mainly because I would doubt you are really losing any privacy. A distinct username isn't associated with any of the data, let alone personal information. While you can argue it's the principle of the thing, it still doesn't seem like that big of an issue.
Okay... put it this way: lots of people intensely dislike spiders. If you put them near spiders they become agitated and try to get away. Lots of people have a strong dislike for having data gathered about them. If you start watching them, analysing their behaviour, gathering statistics they become agitated and try to stop you. You may not be bothered by either spiders or by having data gathered about you (if not then this is most probably more of a threshold thing; you get bothered at a different point rather than not being bothered at all) but you should be able to see that neither group is being "petty". They are being subjected to something they dislike, they object and try to stop it. You can argue that they will always be subject to such data collection just as you can argue that there will always be more spiders, that doesn't make mean they're petty.
In any event, the usage contract the school signed with the proxy provider probably has them covered.
Who, the school or the provider? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, if the school is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they sigend with a third party (the provider) is irrelevant. If the provider is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they signed with a third party (the school) is irrelevant. If neither is vulnerable to action by the individual then any contract they make between them is irrelevant. Or you mean the school can't take action against the provider because the contract lets them collect the data? That may be true but the school could choose not to renew the contract on those terms in future.
It's a waste of energy to dislike something intensely that can't go anywhere.
An extremely defeatist attitude. It'd be pretty depressing if even at school age people had already given up believing they could make an impact on the world.
They can build the watermark checking algorithem right into napster.
So everyone would have access to the program that creates the watermarks, everyone would have access to the program that checks the watermarks, evryone would be able to take unwatermarked tunes and run them through the system as many times as they chose to analyse the effects... how long would you expect such a system to remain uncracked?
It would however have to be implemented in a way that can't be circumvented
Presumably you mean a way that would take more effort to circumvent than you'd expect anyone to be willing to put in? I don't see how a copy protection system that can't be circumvented could even be possible. If something can be made in the first place then it can also be copied.
I agree that most napster users will move to other apps to get their free music fix. But what if the hard drives and other storage mediums don't allow files to be stored that aren't signed with some sort of industry certificate?
What, any files at all? How would you sell hard drives that are that crippled?
Or you mean files stored in a particular format? In that case you'd just use a different format. Once encrypted the hard drive can't possibly know what's in the file.
About 80% illiterate, 70% grammar nazis. 55% are both illiterate and grammar nazis, 25% are illiterate but not grammar nazis, 15% are grammar nazis but not illiterate, 5% are neither illiterate nor grammar nazis but rarely post.
Who do you know that gives away grade A ideas(ones that are worth a billion dollars) so someone can use that idea for free?
Well, Einstein made money from being a physicist but I can't see he got rich. He certainly didn't get a royalty everytiem someone wrote e=mc^2. You really shouldn't find it hard to come up with similar examples.
If you have grade A ideas I would think you will be able to make some money with or without "intellectual property", celebrity is itself a source of revenue. I think you're out of touch if you seriously think people will "hoard" ideas to themselves in the absence of a profit motive, it makes no sense.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away.
On what basis can you label any of it fiction other than you don't believe it?
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. When you don't believe something, that's when you regard it as fiction. That's the basis on which anyone regards anything as a fiction.
Viewing pornography perhaps doesn't hurt the viewer, but the person who is performing the pornography is often forced into the situation due to lack of money/lack of education about alternatives.
Watching Friends, while perhaps "mindwarping", will not kill
No, but I would imagine that a fair few people involved in creating it are "forced into the situation due to lack of money".
Capitalism is going to have real problems if 'people only do that to make money' becomes a reason to make things illegal.
I would be astonished if that were true. The FBI is an organisation with limited resources. It wouldn't be possible for them to investigate all situations in which someone might conceivably be committing a federal offence and if the law requires that they do so then they are constantly breaking that law, simply because they have no choice but to do so. I don't believe there is any such law though, could you tell me where I could find it?
Don't be absurd. You could have a web site genuinely devoted to animal cruelty with a disclaimer to ward off law suits just as easily as you can have a web site that is a joke but doesn't have a disclaimer. If there actually was a case against them based on their content then the existence of a disclaimer should be totally irrelevant.
If the fact that it is obviously a joke isn't enough then there's no way that some paragraph saying "we didn't mean it, honest" is going to help.
Yep. The island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales.
UK = GB + Northern Ireland, IOM and Channel Islands
Ouch. And after you started out so well. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does NOT include the Channel Isles or the Isle of Man which, of course, have governments of their own. All of those things, and more, are parts of the British Isles but that's geography not politics.
Slashdot Mirror
if each British solider were killed overnight in Northern Ireland, a substantial uproar would be caused, and there would be serious discussion of letting North Ireland separate
Erm... at the risk of stating the obvious, you couldn't really "let" Northern Ireland separate unless Northern Ireland wanted to separate. Not even the IRA claim that a majority in Northern Ireland want to leave the UK, and I don't think there's any doubt that if a majority did want that then they'd have it with no need to give in to terrorists and no face lost.
and the stubborn British government (no offense intended, but most countries aren't willing to separate from a part of their country - except, perhaps Canada, who wants to get rid of the Quebecers), will not grant North Ireland independence.
I really don't think you're familiar with the issues at all. The IRA don't want "independence" for Northern Ireland, they want it to be united with the Republic of Ireland The Republic of Ireland does NOT, of course, condone the actions of the IRA). The majority in Northern Ireland do not want this, hence the problem.
You can argue quite reasonably that Ireland should never have been partitioned to begin with, that the British should have granted independence to the whole of the island in one go instead of holding a vote county by county to settle which were in and which were out but you seem to be labouring under the delusion that the population of Northern Ireland are demanding some sort of "independence" and being denied it, which simply isn't true.
Devaluing human life is the next logical step when you realize that we are nothing, but slightly improved apes.
We're not "improved apes", we have a common ancestor with apes. Not "improved", not "better", just different. I don't see how realising that "devalues" human life but in any event, what do you suggest? Lie to each other about it and pretend we're something else?
I have no clue what MS has to do with any of this talk. People just seem to invoke the name to talk about anything bad that could happen. Please find some new evil to harp on.
You must really hate Microsoft to want to take away from them the this recognition of their success. Whatever you think of them they've worked for this; let them bask in this level of demonisation that few can attract, it won't last forever.
So no, GPL is not completely free, but it is completely fair, which BSD license is not.
I agree with you about the GPL. I don't agree that there is anything unfair about the BSD license. As long as the author chooses to grant the unrestricted rights that it entails then it is entirely fair. If the author is happy with it then who is it being unfair to? If the author doesn't comprehend then that really isn't the fault of the BSD license, it's about as clear as it can be.
The GPL could best be described as a "barter" license. Your code for theirs. But don't call it free, because you are not donating anything, you are not contributing anything, you are selling something.
This is incorrect. I agree that the GPL is not 100% free, however the vast majority of users of e.g. the Linux kernel never have to give anything in return. They can use the code for free. They can redistribute the code for free. They can even modify the code and use the resulting derived works for free. It is only if they want to make a derived work and distribute it and would otherwise have used a different licensing scheme that they effectively have to "give" something in return.
I don't think this can really be described as "selling" or even "bartering" since the author doesn't require anything back. It's a case of "you may do whatever you like except the following".
If I said "you can live on my land free of charge and do pretty much whatever you like there including invite others to do so as well just so long as you don't place any furtehr restrictions on them than I'm placing on you", would you say that I'm selling my land? Renting it out? Bartering for it? I don't think any of those would be a reasonable description. IMHO the GPL is equivalent to that.
Right, and that is not free
There are far fewer restrictions than there would be under a typical software license, but obviously I agree it's not 100% free i.e. there are restrictions.
The intention is to achieve as much freedom as practical by preventing the code being used to create much less free products but allowing it to be freely redistributed and built on subject to the requirements necessary to prevent it being incorporated into less free products. You presumably feel it fails to achieve that goal or else consider the goal "silly", either way there are many of us who disagree with you.
and is a silly requirement.
People can bargain for whatever consideration they please. If you accept the right to restrict others from copying the code, which it seems you do though you haven't been entirely clear on that point, and don't like the terms then don't take the code.
As for the control thing, aren't you supposed to give ownership of a GPL'ed project over the FSF generally? (Primarily, according to them, so that they can handle any legal disputes.)
No. I believe they generally wish you to do this if you want your code to be included as part of the GNU project though.
To forestal further misunderstanding I'll point out that you can, of course, take code from the GNU project and amend it however you like without signing it over to them. They just won't include your modifications in their code base i this case.
She learned a very real and very harsh lesson
Really? What lesson do you feel that she learned?
Life isn't fair?
Don't expect people's actions to necessarily match their words?
You can't please everyone?
The teachers aren't as clever as me and my dad?
You should be quiet, try to fit in and not say anything controversial or it stirs up all sorts of attention?
You should try to be different to the others and controversial, it gets you lots of attention?
People are easily upset?
If you manage to pitch your teachers and parents against each other then your parents might be extra good to you to make up for the nasty teachers and the teachers will be wary of messing with you again?
Seriously, I'm interested in knowing what lesson you feel she learned or why you're so sure it's a harsh one. I haven't read anything that suggests she came out of this badly. It's certainly possible that pleasing her teacher is more important to her than pleasing her dad, even to the point that this was a tragedy for her, but I'm not sure why anyone would just assume that that's true.
So if enlightened ISP's were to cooperate they could effectively "boycott" an entire region by ignoring requests from specific ip addresses.
You made a bit of a jump from "the people" doing something in your first post to "enlightened ISP's" doing something in this one.
Do you want "unenlightened ISPs" telling elected governments what to do too or is it a power reserved for those ISPs that agree with you?
(BTW, I don't like the word "race" as a delimiting category among people... our "race" is "human".)
Our species is human. What word do you prefer to "race" and why?
I wouldn't call it a random observation or observation OF A PROBLEM.
:) I must say I thought the majority of the WWW was rather pointless home pages that people had put up for no apparent reason but I'm sure your information is better than mine. I can't say I see the relevance though.
:) That doesn't relate to anything in your original post though.
In the post I was responding to you said "Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays." As far as I can see you were either saying this to refute that there was a problem (i.e. since it happens a lot it isn't a problem, which as I said seems backwards, if it is a problem then it happening a lot does not improve things and if it isn't a problem then how much it happens is simply irrelevant) or you were just saying it for no reason whatsoever, i.e. a random observation. If there's some point behind the comment then what is it?
Cutting right to the chase: What the fuck kind of fascist purpose do you think the data collection is being used for?
I've no idea... I really doubt that fascists are involved though. I think you're confused.
It is being used for consumer research, for crying outloud! What else would it be used for when the majority of the WWW is focused on commerce nowadays?
Thanks for the info
If you see something horribly WRONG with that, you're nitpicking
I suspect "nitpicking" is a word you only recently encountered and wanted to try out since I can't see why regarding anything as being wrong would be an example of nitpicking. If you really think I'm nitpicking then please elaborate.
and yet again, are looking for another reason to get on a soapbox and complain about some idiotically perceived injustice.
Ah, "yet again". I make a habit of that do I?
The idea of taking action with a school over the whole thing is absurd. Furthermore, put aside your childish American I'm-suing-you bullshit mentality (which is what your focus on the whole "legal liability" translates into) for a second
I think you must be confusing me with someone who has visited America at some point? Or, don't tell me, exposure to American influences over the internet and other media has "warped my fragile mind"? In any event, how does it become MY focus on legal liability? You asserted that somebody (I still don't know who) was "covered" by the contract between the school and the provider. The only thing I can think a contract could cover you against is legal action. If you were thinking of something else then please do explain.
that into consideration it's nice the school is providing connection to something as dynamically moving as the Internet in the first place -- mabye students should appreciate that for face value.
You see, you can make a reasonable point when you try
I don't apply that attitude to everything in life, but generally speaking you should try to accept what is unalterable. Building a strong dislike toward something does not always equal taking action when taking action is unrealistic.
All in all, you made a rather incoherent post and when questioned on the detals you have mostly responded abusively. Not everyone you encounter will agree with you or understand you for that matter. Since that's unalterable I suggest you take your own advice and try to learnt to accept it.
No man should be a slave, ruled by force.
If you know another means for men to be ruled then it'd be interesting to hear it.
All governments rule by force, that's pretty much how you tell they're ruling rather than just making suggestions that everyone can follow or not at their own discretion.
Internet usage profiling is nothing new. It's quite common nowadays.
I'm a little confused where you're coming from with that comment. Are you suggesting that the more common something becomes the less of a problem it is (which sounds completely backwards) or was that just a sort of random observation?
Not to sound hostile, but this really sounds very petty. Mainly because I would doubt you are really losing any privacy. A distinct username isn't associated with any of the data, let alone personal information. While you can argue it's the principle of the thing, it still doesn't seem like that big of an issue.
Okay... put it this way: lots of people intensely dislike spiders. If you put them near spiders they become agitated and try to get away. Lots of people have a strong dislike for having data gathered about them. If you start watching them, analysing their behaviour, gathering statistics they become agitated and try to stop you. You may not be bothered by either spiders or by having data gathered about you (if not then this is most probably more of a threshold thing; you get bothered at a different point rather than not being bothered at all) but you should be able to see that neither group is being "petty". They are being subjected to something they dislike, they object and try to stop it. You can argue that they will always be subject to such data collection just as you can argue that there will always be more spiders, that doesn't make mean they're petty.
In any event, the usage contract the school signed with the proxy provider probably has them covered.
Who, the school or the provider? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, if the school is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they sigend with a third party (the provider) is irrelevant. If the provider is vulnerable to action by the individual then a contract they signed with a third party (the school) is irrelevant. If neither is vulnerable to action by the individual then any contract they make between them is irrelevant. Or you mean the school can't take action against the provider because the contract lets them collect the data? That may be true but the school could choose not to renew the contract on those terms in future.
It's a waste of energy to dislike something intensely that can't go anywhere.
An extremely defeatist attitude. It'd be pretty depressing if even at school age people had already given up believing they could make an impact on the world.
They can build the watermark checking algorithem right into napster.
So everyone would have access to the program that creates the watermarks, everyone would have access to the program that checks the watermarks, evryone would be able to take unwatermarked tunes and run them through the system as many times as they chose to analyse the effects... how long would you expect such a system to remain uncracked?
It would however have to be implemented in a way that can't be circumvented
Presumably you mean a way that would take more effort to circumvent than you'd expect anyone to be willing to put in? I don't see how a copy protection system that can't be circumvented could even be possible. If something can be made in the first place then it can also be copied.
I agree that most napster users will move to other apps to get their free music fix. But what if the hard drives and other storage mediums don't allow files to be stored that aren't signed with some sort of industry certificate?
What, any files at all? How would you sell hard drives that are that crippled?
Or you mean files stored in a particular format? In that case you'd just use a different format. Once encrypted the hard drive can't possibly know what's in the file.
About 80% illiterate, 70% grammar nazis. 55% are both illiterate and grammar nazis, 25% are illiterate but not grammar nazis, 15% are grammar nazis but not illiterate, 5% are neither illiterate nor grammar nazis but rarely post.
Who do you know that gives away grade A ideas(ones that are worth a billion dollars) so someone can use that idea for free?
Well, Einstein made money from being a physicist but I can't see he got rich. He certainly didn't get a royalty everytiem someone wrote e=mc^2. You really shouldn't find it hard to come up with similar examples.
If you have grade A ideas I would think you will be able to make some money with or without "intellectual property", celebrity is itself a source of revenue. I think you're out of touch if you seriously think people will "hoard" ideas to themselves in the absence of a profit motive, it makes no sense.
Or how the Tooth Fairy feels when She is compared to God?
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away.
On what basis can you label any of it fiction other than you don't believe it?
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. When you don't believe something, that's when you regard it as fiction. That's the basis on which anyone regards anything as a fiction.
Viewing pornography perhaps doesn't hurt the viewer, but the person who is performing the pornography is often forced into the situation due to lack of money/lack of education about alternatives.
Watching Friends, while perhaps "mindwarping", will not kill
No, but I would imagine that a fair few people involved in creating it are "forced into the situation due to lack of money".
Capitalism is going to have real problems if 'people only do that to make money' becomes a reason to make things illegal.
The FBI is required, by law, to investigate this.
I would be astonished if that were true. The FBI is an organisation with limited resources. It wouldn't be possible for them to investigate all situations in which someone might conceivably be committing a federal offence and if the law requires that they do so then they are constantly breaking that law, simply because they have no choice but to do so. I don't believe there is any such law though, could you tell me where I could find it?
How could this have been avoided altogether while still excercising free speech? With a frickin' discalimer©
Don't be absurd. You could have a web site genuinely devoted to animal cruelty with a disclaimer to ward off law suits just as easily as you can have a web site that is a joke but doesn't have a disclaimer. If there actually was a case against them based on their content then the existence of a disclaimer should be totally irrelevant.
If the fact that it is obviously a joke isn't enough then there's no way that some paragraph saying "we didn't mean it, honest" is going to help.
Great Britain = Mainland UK
Yep. The island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales.
UK = GB + Northern Ireland, IOM and Channel Islands
Ouch. And after you started out so well. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does NOT include the Channel Isles or the Isle of Man which, of course, have governments of their own. All of those things, and more, are parts of the British Isles but that's geography not politics.