The grant is from the NSF, not the DoD which implies it is more scientific in nature.
Chuckle. I wish.
The friking NSF has been pouring tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars into research grants on Trusted Computing and related stuff to lock down.... oops I mean to secure... computers and the internet.
Here, take a look. That is a "Trusted Computing" search of currently active NSF research grants. I count over $36 million right there alone. Not to mention that it's likely some relevant projects slipped past that simple search, and not to mention the fact that NSF computer-related grants have been primarily directed to Trusted Computing for quite some years now.
Hell, if you do a search of NSF funding (not merely computer related funding but a search of ALL NSF funding) you get 152 documents found in 578 documents searched. That is more than 26% of ALL searched documents hitting on Trusted Computing. It seems that Trusted Computing is likely the #1 "science research" item on the NSF agenda.
Between the government initiative to secure the National Information Infrastructure against Terrorist Cyber Attack, and the influence of corporate interests, the NSF and other government agencies have become pipelines for pouring grotesque sums of money into developing and pushing Trusted Computing.
The things going on towards Trusted Computing stuff can sound like a bad conspiracy theory, but there is really nothing secret or theoretical about it. It's all publicly admitted. There are more than a hundred companies publicly members of the Trusted Computing group - pretty well every computer-related company you can name. The CPU manufacturers (Intel AMD Motorola), the BIOS makers (phoenix AMI), all the major players (Microsoft IBM Sun HP), motherboard makers, the major PC brands, the wireless and networking companies, harddrive makers, virtually every significant company in the computer industry.
And the public NSF grants for it, linked above. And the public Homeland Security effort and money for "securing" the internet, and other other US government agencies, and policy initiatives suggesting a requirement for all government computer purchases to be Trusted Computing compliant - and get this - I've seen these initiatives literally STATE one of the purposes of the requirement being to bootstrap the market for such computers - explicitly STATING the purpose of huge government purchases of Trusted Computers being to establish a large and secure market demand for them so that computer companies can/will invest in mass producing Trusted Computers, in order to establish the supply of Trusted compliant computers to the general public market. I think the military did in fact adopt a policy requiring their purchases to be Trusted Compliant, but I'd have to double check on that. Ahh, I just googled, yes I was right. U.S. Army requires trusted computing.
The European Union is perhaps even more gung-ho on it than the US. They have been having all sorts of EU conferences on creating a new Information Society and securing the internet to enable that new Information Society. A google on EU "Information Society" "trusted computing" gets 18,800 hits. 23,400 hits if you search for EU "information society" DRM. There are countless published documents from these EU Information Society projects stating and detailing their desire and efforts to lock down computers and lock down the internet, for law enforcement reasons and copyright/commerce reasons a
If it's my computer, I should be able to put whatever on it I want.
Technically, Trusted Computing agrees with you and allows that. HOWEVER. You can run anything you want *or* you can run the Microsoft Trust package. You can't do both. If you run the Microsoft Trust package you cannot make any unapproved modifications without nuking the system. And if you do opt-out of the Microsoft Trust package, you can run what you like but it is impossible for your software to read any data inside the secures area of the Trusted system and it is impossible to read any Trust-secured file types (like DRMed music or even Trusted email) with your software. And also other computers can and will refuse to connect to you over the internet because you are not running the Microsoft Trust package - i.e. it with be impossible for you to view websites no matter what software you run. The websites will only be viewable on Microsoft Trusted Windows using the Microsoft Trusted browser, a browser which enforces DRM and which enforces ad-views etc. What website wouldn't jump at the chance to use Trusted Computing to enforce ad-views and lock out ad-blockers and more?
signature... Microsoft does not provide for that
That is a common misunderstanding of Trusted Computing. It fundamentally does not need signatures. Any usage of signatures is essentially on-top-of and independent of Trusted Computing.
The Trust system takes a hash of software and uses that effectively as a signature identifying the software. That hash is used to lock and unlock files, and that hash is used to identify the software over the internet. It fundamentally doesn't matter if the software is signed.... any attempt to alter the software will alter the hash. If the hash changes the chip makes it impossible for the software to read and of the encrypted data files it needs to read. The chip also securely reports that hash over the internet, so if you modify the software other computers will see the wrong hash and refuse to talk to it.
Any attempt to modify any software locks you out. If you run your own software, you get locked out of data files and websites and other internet connections. You can "opt-in" and run the handcuff-ware software they give you, or you can "opt-out" and be free to run anything you like and be locked out of files and internet connections and locked out of pretty much everything.
First, note that Iam the story submitter. Second, and more important, note that I am a programmer and have I read the Trusted Platform Module technical specification from cover to cover. The 332 page technical spec.
The goal is to allow you to trust that your computer has not been compromised by a third party
Demonstrably incorrect. That is NOT the fundamental design criteria of the Trust chip. You could get all of that functionality from a virtually identical design that did not secure the computer AGAINST the owner. If you are up for the technical details, you could for example have an identical chip with identical capabilities, except that you permit the owner to get a printed copy of his PrivEK when he buys the system. That alone would be minimally sufficient to grant the owner ultimate control of his system, but for technical reasons the chip should also have the capability to export the RootStorageKey encrypted to the PrivEK, as this makes things massively simpler benefiting security.
I forget the page number, but at one point somewhere in the latter half, the technical spec EXPLICITLY refers to the the owner as an "attacker". The specification explicitly details the measures that must be taken to secure the system AGAINST THE OWNER.
AGAINST THE OWNER.
Q.E.D. The fact that the technical specification for the chip repeatedly places the HIGHEST PRIORITY of forbidding the owner to ever obtain his own key (which would provide him ultimate control of his own computer) demonstrates that in fact the purpose of the design is to secure the computer against the owner. As the grandparent put it: Trusted computing is all about allowing vendors like microsoft to trust the computer to work in thier partners interests rather than the users.
Of course, if you pour concrete over my house and take other insane measures to lock me out of my own home, yeah.... that does also incidentally have the effect of keeping other people out of my home too. The point here is that the owner is denied the key to his own house. Trying to advertise that as a security system securing the home FOR the owner is obviously a comically bogus argument.
If you're not using Bitlocker (and therefore presumably don't care about a trusted bootloader) you are still unable to install SP1.
I submitted this. Read my blurb again. Or Read The Fine Article.
If you have Vista Enterprise or Vista Ultimate, Service Pack 1 refuses to install on dual boot systems. Even if you are NOT using BitLocker. Even if you are not using BitLocker and you have the TPM deactivated. Even if you are not using BitLocker and you don't even have a TPM chip in your computer at all.
The Service Pack refuses to install.
If you have Vista Home Basic or something, then you don't have this bit of Trusted Computing lurking within your OS. In which case the Service Pack will install permit the install.
Microsoft is working at the wrong end of the chain. If they were serious about security
Microsoft has re-defined the term "security". Trusted Computing is fundamentally about securing the computer against the owner. Of course securing the computer against the owner pretty much results in security against others at the same time, but I'd say that's almost a side effect of the anti-owner "security".
And if the intent and definition of "security" is to secure the computer against the owner, then yes Microsoft is working at exactly the right end of the chain.
I submitted the story, and I am intimately familiar with the low level technical aspects of how Trusted Computing works. I studied cover to cover the 332 page technical specification for the Trust chip.
Vista's security chain works as designed and intended
Working as intended... either you get Trust-Locked *IN* to Microsoft's system (and locked into the handcuffs), *OR* you get Trust-Locked *OUT* of the Microsoft universe and locked out of software and locked out of media and locked out of files - even your own files if they are under the Trust seal.
That's the gimmick of Trusted Computing. It's all opt-in. You have the choice to opt-in to wearing handcuffs, or you choose to opt-out and you get locked out and it's impossible to run the relevant software and it's impossible to access any of the relevant data (even your own data). If/when Microsoft resumes deploying this Trust system, websites will start utilizing it. Either you "opt-in", and you can view the website on your Approved Microsoft OS using your approved webbrowser - or you opt out and you can't access the website at all. And websites will jump on board because the Trust system will enforce ad-views (no adblockers possible!) and they can prevent you from saving copies of their text and images and videos and sounds - the browser just won't display any "save" option and it's all encrypted and impossible to save.
The ONLY flaw I see in the entire Vista/TPM system is that users don't seem to have a way of manually trusting things they genuinely want to trust.
That aspect is fundamentally designed into the hardware chip itself. The chip is designed to secure the system against the owner. The chip says the owner has no control, except the control to "opt-in" to a given pair of handcuffs or to "opt-out" and the chip locks you out. The software you are given defines all of the rules, and between the chip's RemoteAttestation functionality and the chip's the Sealing functionality, the chip makes it impossible for you to change or control anything, except to opt-into the given handcuffs or to opt-out locked out. Any attempt to opt-out and the chip ensures nothing "works" - locks you and out of the needed files and ensures you are locked out of needed internet connections. The software will not work, any modification of the software will no work, no possible other software will work for whatever it is you were trying to do when you were hit with the "opt-in" choice.
i would prefer to see the discussion take a more intelligent direction -- how to obtain keys/certificates, how to add them to Vista's chain of trust on a per PC or per domain basis, and how how sign code with them
The Trust Chip doesn't really need or care about signing code. That is a common misunderstanding about Trusted Computing - the idea it is about signed code. Yes some particular things like drivers will use code signing, but that is purely incidental. The Trust chip enforces all of this stuff even if there are no signatures anywhere on anything. The Trust chip is itself locked down, the Trust chip itself generates an identity signature for software, even if it wasn't otherwise signed. The Trust chip inherently uses this automatic "signature" to lock down the software and lock down the data files for that software and to enable that software's internet communications to be remotely locked down and spied upon.
There is no basic fix to make this Not-Evil by just having Microsoft or any other particular person/organization Not-Be-Evil with this stuff. The evil aspect is in the chip design itself, handing those lockdown powers to whomever wrote the un-modifiable software you were given.
This *may* be a corner case as most TPM's were shipped in the disabled state back when XP was still shipping.
I wrote the summary.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you are not running BitLocker. Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if the TPM is in a disabled state. Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you you do not have a TPM. If you are running a Windows version with support for the Trust system at all - currently Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate - then the service pack sees the install is going to invalidate the Trust chain, will cause the lock you out of and and all keys of this sort. Not merely your BitLocker keys, but your keys to any other existing or future software which activates this Trust system. Right now that pretty much just means BitLocker - but applying the service pack can and will result in the Trust chip nuking any and all software built on this Trusted system.
Trusted Computing was intended to be a fully implemented "feature" of Vista, but dropped in the massive feature cuts. If/when Microsoft resumes and fully implements that plan in Windows 7 or whatever, then there isn't much possibility for any workaround. You won't be able to install/run service packs at all, you won't be able to install/run core elements of the operating systems at all, if you have any such unapproved modifications. If Trusted Computing is implemented as they planned, it becomes a strict either-or situation. Either you run an unmodified Trusted Windows install exactly as Microsoft dictates and locked in Microsoft handcuffs, or you can run what you like while absolutely you are locked out of Windows and locked out of any of your own data secured under the Windows Trust system.
And I love this part: Offenders can also have their vehicle - in this case a wheelbarrow - confiscated.
I can just see some five-year-old having their tricycle confiscated for playing with a plastic pail of sand and pouring it on the beach. Damn Fly Tippers.
Agreed. I was just trying to humorously play off his "Next question please" line, hoping for a similar style answer. And I got modded Flamebait for it. LOL.
Some of my favorites: No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.
-
I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!
-
[Am I in discussion with a human who has a functioning brain?] What does a functioning brain have to do with the Bible?
-
If the Bible is wrong when it tells us it is infallible, then it contradicts itself. If it contradicts itself, then it is unreliable. If it is unreliable, then our faith is totally shattered and Christianity is a lie. You need to seriously reconsider your logic.
-
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The marketplace can be extremely conservative at times.
Yes, the market is extremely conservative. Which explains why Bush is so in-tune with the economy.
-
The grant is from the NSF, not the DoD which implies it is more scientific in nature.
Chuckle. I wish.
The friking NSF has been pouring tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars into research grants on Trusted Computing and related stuff to lock down.... oops I mean to secure... computers and the internet.
Here, take a look. That is a "Trusted Computing" search of currently active NSF research grants. I count over $36 million right there alone. Not to mention that it's likely some relevant projects slipped past that simple search, and not to mention the fact that NSF computer-related grants have been primarily directed to Trusted Computing for quite some years now.
Hell, if you do a search of NSF funding (not merely computer related funding but a search of ALL NSF funding) you get 152 documents found in 578 documents searched. That is more than 26% of ALL searched documents hitting on Trusted Computing. It seems that Trusted Computing is likely the #1 "science research" item on the NSF agenda.
Between the government initiative to secure the National Information Infrastructure against Terrorist Cyber Attack, and the influence of corporate interests, the NSF and other government agencies have become pipelines for pouring grotesque sums of money into developing and pushing Trusted Computing.
The things going on towards Trusted Computing stuff can sound like a bad conspiracy theory, but there is really nothing secret or theoretical about it. It's all publicly admitted. There are more than a hundred companies publicly members of the Trusted Computing group - pretty well every computer-related company you can name. The CPU manufacturers (Intel AMD Motorola), the BIOS makers (phoenix AMI), all the major players (Microsoft IBM Sun HP), motherboard makers, the major PC brands, the wireless and networking companies, harddrive makers, virtually every significant company in the computer industry.
And the public NSF grants for it, linked above. And the public Homeland Security effort and money for "securing" the internet, and other other US government agencies, and policy initiatives suggesting a requirement for all government computer purchases to be Trusted Computing compliant - and get this - I've seen these initiatives literally STATE one of the purposes of the requirement being to bootstrap the market for such computers - explicitly STATING the purpose of huge government purchases of Trusted Computers being to establish a large and secure market demand for them so that computer companies can/will invest in mass producing Trusted Computers, in order to establish the supply of Trusted compliant computers to the general public market. I think the military did in fact adopt a policy requiring their purchases to be Trusted Compliant, but I'd have to double check on that. Ahh, I just googled, yes I was right. U.S. Army requires trusted computing.
The European Union is perhaps even more gung-ho on it than the US. They have been having all sorts of EU conferences on creating a new Information Society and securing the internet to enable that new Information Society. A google on EU "Information Society" "trusted computing" gets 18,800 hits. 23,400 hits if you search for EU "information society" DRM. There are countless published documents from these EU Information Society projects stating and detailing their desire and efforts to lock down computers and lock down the internet, for law enforcement reasons and copyright/commerce reasons a
I don't understand how a regulated internet is going to improve communications.
That's because you misspelled "improve".
You need a shift-4 in there.
-
I just bought a laptop... came with the Home edition... wiped the disk
Sorry, Microsoft, but I'd call this Epic Fail.
Dear Eggplant62,
Thanx for paying us our proper fee.
Epic Fail.
Sincerely, your Overlord, Microsoft.
-
If it's my computer, I should be able to put whatever on it I want.
Technically, Trusted Computing agrees with you and allows that.
HOWEVER. You can run anything you want *or* you can run the Microsoft Trust package. You can't do both. If you run the Microsoft Trust package you cannot make any unapproved modifications without nuking the system.
And if you do opt-out of the Microsoft Trust package, you can run what you like but it is impossible for your software to read any data inside the secures area of the Trusted system and it is impossible to read any Trust-secured file types (like DRMed music or even Trusted email) with your software. And also other computers can and will refuse to connect to you over the internet because you are not running the Microsoft Trust package - i.e. it with be impossible for you to view websites no matter what software you run. The websites will only be viewable on Microsoft Trusted Windows using the Microsoft Trusted browser, a browser which enforces DRM and which enforces ad-views etc. What website wouldn't jump at the chance to use Trusted Computing to enforce ad-views and lock out ad-blockers and more?
signature ... Microsoft does not provide for that
That is a common misunderstanding of Trusted Computing. It fundamentally does not need signatures. Any usage of signatures is essentially on-top-of and independent of Trusted Computing.
The Trust system takes a hash of software and uses that effectively as a signature identifying the software. That hash is used to lock and unlock files, and that hash is used to identify the software over the internet. It fundamentally doesn't matter if the software is signed.... any attempt to alter the software will alter the hash. If the hash changes the chip makes it impossible for the software to read and of the encrypted data files it needs to read. The chip also securely reports that hash over the internet, so if you modify the software other computers will see the wrong hash and refuse to talk to it.
Any attempt to modify any software locks you out.
If you run your own software, you get locked out of data files and websites and other internet connections.
You can "opt-in" and run the handcuff-ware software they give you, or you can "opt-out" and be free to run anything you like and be locked out of files and internet connections and locked out of pretty much everything.
-
First, note that Iam the story submitter.
Second, and more important, note that I am a programmer and have I read the Trusted Platform Module technical specification from cover to cover. The 332 page technical spec.
The goal is to allow you to trust that your computer has not been compromised by a third party
Demonstrably incorrect. That is NOT the fundamental design criteria of the Trust chip.
You could get all of that functionality from a virtually identical design that did not secure the computer AGAINST the owner. If you are up for the technical details, you could for example have an identical chip with identical capabilities, except that you permit the owner to get a printed copy of his PrivEK when he buys the system. That alone would be minimally sufficient to grant the owner ultimate control of his system, but for technical reasons the chip should also have the capability to export the RootStorageKey encrypted to the PrivEK, as this makes things massively simpler benefiting security.
I forget the page number, but at one point somewhere in the latter half, the technical spec EXPLICITLY refers to the the owner as an "attacker". The specification explicitly details the measures that must be taken to secure the system AGAINST THE OWNER.
AGAINST
THE
OWNER.
Q.E.D. The fact that the technical specification for the chip repeatedly places the HIGHEST PRIORITY of forbidding the owner to ever obtain his own key (which would provide him ultimate control of his own computer) demonstrates that in fact the purpose of the design is to secure the computer against the owner. As the grandparent put it:
Trusted computing is all about allowing vendors like microsoft to trust the computer to work in thier partners interests rather than the users.
Of course, if you pour concrete over my house and take other insane measures to lock me out of my own home, yeah.... that does also incidentally have the effect of keeping other people out of my home too. The point here is that the owner is denied the key to his own house. Trying to advertise that as a security system securing the home FOR the owner is obviously a comically bogus argument.
-
If you're not using Bitlocker (and therefore presumably don't care about a trusted bootloader) you are still unable to install SP1.
I submitted this. Read my blurb again. Or Read The Fine Article.
If you have Vista Enterprise or Vista Ultimate, Service Pack 1 refuses to install on dual boot systems. Even if you are NOT using BitLocker. Even if you are not using BitLocker and you have the TPM deactivated. Even if you are not using BitLocker and you don't even have a TPM chip in your computer at all.
The Service Pack refuses to install.
If you have Vista Home Basic or something, then you don't have this bit of Trusted Computing lurking within your OS. In which case the Service Pack will install permit the install.
Microsoft is working at the wrong end of the chain. If they were serious about security
Microsoft has re-defined the term "security". Trusted Computing is fundamentally about securing the computer against the owner. Of course securing the computer against the owner pretty much results in security against others at the same time, but I'd say that's almost a side effect of the anti-owner "security".
And if the intent and definition of "security" is to secure the computer against the owner, then yes Microsoft is working at exactly the right end of the chain.
-
I submitted the story, and I am intimately familiar with the low level technical aspects of how Trusted Computing works. I studied cover to cover the 332 page technical specification for the Trust chip.
Vista's security chain works as designed and intended
Working as intended... either you get Trust-Locked *IN* to Microsoft's system (and locked into the handcuffs), *OR* you get Trust-Locked *OUT* of the Microsoft universe and locked out of software and locked out of media and locked out of files - even your own files if they are under the Trust seal.
That's the gimmick of Trusted Computing. It's all opt-in. You have the choice to opt-in to wearing handcuffs, or you choose to opt-out and you get locked out and it's impossible to run the relevant software and it's impossible to access any of the relevant data (even your own data). If/when Microsoft resumes deploying this Trust system, websites will start utilizing it. Either you "opt-in", and you can view the website on your Approved Microsoft OS using your approved webbrowser - or you opt out and you can't access the website at all. And websites will jump on board because the Trust system will enforce ad-views (no adblockers possible!) and they can prevent you from saving copies of their text and images and videos and sounds - the browser just won't display any "save" option and it's all encrypted and impossible to save.
The ONLY flaw I see in the entire Vista/TPM system is that users don't seem to have a way of manually trusting things they genuinely want to trust.
That aspect is fundamentally designed into the hardware chip itself.
The chip is designed to secure the system against the owner.
The chip says the owner has no control, except the control to "opt-in" to a given pair of handcuffs or to "opt-out" and the chip locks you out.
The software you are given defines all of the rules, and between the chip's RemoteAttestation functionality and the chip's the Sealing functionality, the chip makes it impossible for you to change or control anything, except to opt-into the given handcuffs or to opt-out locked out.
Any attempt to opt-out and the chip ensures nothing "works" - locks you and out of the needed files and ensures you are locked out of needed internet connections. The software will not work, any modification of the software will no work, no possible other software will work for whatever it is you were trying to do when you were hit with the "opt-in" choice.
i would prefer to see the discussion take a more intelligent direction -- how to obtain keys/certificates, how to add them to Vista's chain of trust on a per PC or per domain basis, and how how sign code with them
The Trust Chip doesn't really need or care about signing code. That is a common misunderstanding about Trusted Computing - the idea it is about signed code. Yes some particular things like drivers will use code signing, but that is purely incidental. The Trust chip enforces all of this stuff even if there are no signatures anywhere on anything. The Trust chip is itself locked down, the Trust chip itself generates an identity signature for software, even if it wasn't otherwise signed. The Trust chip inherently uses this automatic "signature" to lock down the software and lock down the data files for that software and to enable that software's internet communications to be remotely locked down and spied upon.
There is no basic fix to make this Not-Evil by just having Microsoft or any other particular person/organization Not-Be-Evil with this stuff. The evil aspect is in the chip design itself, handing those lockdown powers to whomever wrote the un-modifiable software you were given.
-
This *may* be a corner case as most TPM's were shipped in the disabled state back when XP was still shipping.
I wrote the summary.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you are not running BitLocker.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if the TPM is in a disabled state.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you you do not have a TPM.
If you are running a Windows version with support for the Trust system at all - currently Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate - then the service pack sees the install is going to invalidate the Trust chain, will cause the lock you out of and and all keys of this sort. Not merely your BitLocker keys, but your keys to any other existing or future software which activates this Trust system. Right now that pretty much just means BitLocker - but applying the service pack can and will result in the Trust chip nuking any and all software built on this Trusted system.
Trusted Computing was intended to be a fully implemented "feature" of Vista, but dropped in the massive feature cuts. If/when Microsoft resumes and fully implements that plan in Windows 7 or whatever, then there isn't much possibility for any workaround. You won't be able to install/run service packs at all, you won't be able to install/run core elements of the operating systems at all, if you have any such unapproved modifications. If Trusted Computing is implemented as they planned, it becomes a strict either-or situation. Either you run an unmodified Trusted Windows install exactly as Microsoft dictates and locked in Microsoft handcuffs, or you can run what you like while absolutely you are locked out of Windows and locked out of any of your own data secured under the Windows Trust system.
-
I resent that remark! I'm clearly Homo Superior.
Pffft! PakProtector
Some mid-life-crisis yahoo breeder gets high on some wacky-weed and suddenly he thinks he's better than everyone else.
;)
-
fly tipping
I (and probably most non-Brits) was rather puzzled by that phrase. All I could think of was cow tipping. LOL. So I looked it up:
Fly-tipping or dumping is a British term for illegally dumping waste somewhere other than an authorised landfill.
And I came across this hysterical news item of a man threatened with prosecution under the Fly Tipping law:
threatened with prison or a £50,000 fine if he takes windblown sand back to the beach.
Oh christ, some government official being just a wee bit anal-retentive with the law there.
And I love this part: Offenders can also have their vehicle - in this case a wheelbarrow - confiscated.
I can just see some five-year-old having their tricycle confiscated for playing with a plastic pail of sand and pouring it on the beach. Damn Fly Tippers.
-
Is it just me, or is England already well down the spiral towards "What the Fuck are you Thinking, Nation?"
England? Just you.
Homo Sapiens, the "What the Fuck are you Thinking, Species".
-
To be more precise, the purpose of this immunity is to prevent them from naming names and enabling prosecution of folks higher up the food chain.
-
Agreed. I was just trying to humorously play off his "Next question please" line, hoping for a similar style answer.
And I got modded Flamebait for it. LOL.
-
1. I'm male.
2. Buy yourself a sense of humor.
-
Redirect his browser to an illegal porn site
Good idea. Perhaps you could suggest a few, off the top of your head?
-
People are laughing. You don't find it funny, sure, whatever.
But noOoOo... you have to go on a rant bitching about it.
I suggest you have that stick surgically removed from your ass.
-
some three dozen species of microbes previously unknown to man
One of the things I most hate about women is that they're so damn secretive about stuff.
-
Does God exist?
-
As a representative of human life, I hereby volunteer to take that chance. I thin if you put the word out, people would be lined up around the block.
So, you're saying you should get picked for the mission because you can better squeeze and explore through narrow cracks and crevices?
-
Tolkien? Bah!
The Gospel of Suess!
Sam I am.
-
"I am your father" is a reference to Star Wars
Ah yes, The Gospel of Luke.
-
I hear he also learned to speak Klingon, with pretty much the same outcome.
-
Both of the quotes appear on the Fundies Say The Darndest Things top 100 collection.
Some of my favorites:
No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.
-
I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don't think he's ready to date yet. What's worse is that he's sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!
-
[Am I in discussion with a human who has a functioning brain?]
What does a functioning brain have to do with the Bible?
-
If the Bible is wrong when it tells us it is infallible, then it contradicts itself. If it contradicts itself, then it is unreliable. If it is unreliable, then our faith is totally shattered and Christianity is a lie. You need to seriously reconsider your logic.
-
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
-
Mod parent down for not understanding
YMBNH.
-