You forgot The Matrix. The sequels decided to tread more philosophical ground...
WTF? First time I've heard anyone claim that. The sequels ditched any attempts to pose philosphical questions and went for CGI mecha shooting at each other, and Hong Kong-wirework flying duels. Just a glossier DragonBall Z. What philosphical conundrum is explored with Agent Smith and Neo bouncing off each other for 20 minutes in the rain? Men in armoured suits fighting robot squid?
The worst slide from aublime into idiocy by sequels since Jaws.
actually to make geeks happy they should save DNS space and put it at: www.mgm.com/wargames2
A true geek would use wargames2.mgm.com.
Too bad the concept of subdomainms seems beyond most companies. And registrars and the like actively promote the proliferation of separate.com domains for every purpose, that often after a year or so are neglected and end up as phishing or porn sites, where subdomains cost nothing and last as long as the parent domain.
Perhaps in a general sense of providing an Internet service, not just the wires. For instance a Usenet or email subscriber service; anyone who hosts a site with a forum (which is almost everyone these days). Lots and lots of people who provide access could be found responsible for their users.
The purpose of a common law barrister is to distingush MyHomePage.com and Google.com from the subject of this case
The problem is that while Google can afford a barrister, your average blogger can't. Your average small ISP can't, for that matter. So it very quickly leads to only large corporations daring to publish anything for fear of crippling legal defence costs.
But in death, they are suddenly elevated to this sainthood where making fun of them is absolutely verboten.
Yes. Exactly. Making fun of the recently deceased, especailly those who were murdered by a psychopath, leaving their familes in shock and mourning, is forbidden in any civilised society. Regardless of whether you think they were saintly or not. And if you want to "pierce the hypocricy, and remind people that normally they don't give a hooker a second thought", well, think of a way to do it that actually makes that point instead of the point that these women were worthless and deserved to be killed. Because having your tongue in cheek on a subject like this while their bodies are still yet unburied is being obnoxiously insensitive, and in person would get you vilified and attacked yourself.
1) They have a normal number in addition to the skype links.
Actually, they don't. If anyone had cared to RTFA, they'd see only normal numbers. Unless you've installed a Skype toolbar and imagine the links it makes are actually on the BBC site. Hint: Look at the source HTML. Just numbers, no links at all.
Interesting since this ended up in a (supposedly) reputable Australian Newspaper
Read the Snopes article, it explains what seems to be the history of the story. Note that no version of the story names the woman who was supposed to have been forced to work in a brothel, or gives any other verifiable facts. Once a story gets on a wire service, it will go everywhere. The newspapers just cut and paste them to fill required space.
Like a lot of "it could have happened" stories, you have to think that if it did really happen, there would have been a lot more fuss made and the person involved would have done the media circuits and/or started a legal case.
Anyone with information that would help Ipswich detectives is urged to contact the incident room on 0800 096 1011 or speak to Crimestoppers in confidence on 0800 555 111.
Which idiot wrote the headline without even looking at TFA?
I hate to say it, but better illegal than legal *and* legally recognized by the State as a "normal" profession like in Germany. There was the recent case of an unemployed lady there who was refused continuing unemployment benefits
...a story was sensationalized for political purposes and passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurrence.
Of course they are. Unlike "technology analysts" who are on a Microsoft retainers while pretendng to be impartial. There's too much PR masquerading as news, and not a little gets posted her, for that matter.
es if a business wants to reach people using the most modern hardware and software then they are going to have to go out of their way to support a wide variety of standards and browsers.
This isn't a random website, it's the public transport site of a city. I don't know how corporatised it is, but in any case they have a greater duty to be accessible to the citizens of the city than your average commercial enterprise.
Do you honestly think it should be mandated that computers must come OS-free?
No one said that. But they should be able to be purchased that way if you want, and at a lesser cost because no matter what bullshit spin about it being cheaper to buy a PC with Windows than without, it's the consumers who have made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. He didn't get that way by subsidising everyone's PC. So whatever discount is offered up front is more than covered by a hidden, larger, cost going to MS.
You can't drive a car without tires, and when you buy a car, you generally don't pick the brand of tires they put on it.
Bad analogy, like most car analogies. You actually have to drive the car out of the dealer's. So it needs to be ready to go. But regardless, I'm sure most car dealers would be happy to put your choice of tyres on if you asked before handing over your money. And there isn't one tyre company that produces 95% of all tyres.
He is an idiot. A PC will probably need an OS eventually,
What he's saying may be idiotic, but he's not an idiot, he's a lawyer making a case for his employer. Do you think Jimmy Cochran believed that OJ was innocent?
Gateworld reports that an exclusive, third Stargate series is in the works
In what way is it exclusive? Perhaps it excludes plot, character development, and good writing?
It just means that the dipshit who submitted it took the headline of TFA "Exclusive: Third Stargate series in development" and mangled it into his summary without apparently understanding the journalistic meaning of "exclusive".
You must be new to this internet thing. Porn is everywhere, and pornographers are targeting children.
I said "except spammers". They're already breaking the law by pushing kiddie porn and bestiality so this proposal will hardly make any difference either way. And I rather doubt they're "targetting children". They just send it to everyone. Kids don't have any money to spend buying porn. They're amoral businessmen, there's no profit in corrupting children.
Many of the same people who see no harm in pornography or even virtual child porn are the same people trying to get Joe Camel (cartoon character) away from the kids because it lead kids to smoking.
I find such a view quite laughable because they use the exact opposite argument for each. "Its just a cartoon, nobody follows up with what a cartoon does" and "Its a cartoon, kids like cartoons and they'll start smoking because of Joe".
The difference is that if you don't want to see porno cartoons, no one is making you (except perhaps spammers and goatse-style "pranksters"). But if Camel is using Joe's iamge all over the place, I can't avoid it. More to the point, children can't avoid it.
yeah - blind people should sit at home, in the dark and leave everyone alone. what right have they got to go out and do things in the world around 'normal' people?
Yep. They should be allowed to pilot airplanes and do brain surgery too.
Is anyone reminded of when Al Pacino went for a drive in Scent of a Woman? Hoo-Yah! Or more to the point, Ray Charles in Blues Brothers warning off the shoplifter?
You mean like charging that one guy with tax evasion instead of all the murders, thefts, etc? It means if I catch Mr. Sex Offender IMing my daughter and it turns out he is a registered offender and didn't register that name...his ass his grass and he didn't even have to rape my daughter for me to be able to start the process of putting him away.
The said former sex-offender is already forbidden from contacting kids like your daughter. If he did that he's back in the can anyway. Besides if not regitering his email is the only thing you have on him, I doubt that alone is going to send him away. His lawyer can claim the paperwork was lost, etc, etc.
3. They're not always very smart -- they may not think of multiple IDs.
When they find their registered address is blocked from MySpace, how long will it take even a not-very-smart pervert to work out he should get another one? All it's done is forced all the perverts to cover their tracks BEFORE they've done anything. About as useful as the No-Fly list. As if Osama bin Laden would book a ticket under his own name. But every poor guy called Mohammed is put through the wringer.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey: you spelled "King" correctly. Otherwise, perfect.
WTF? First time I've heard anyone claim that. The sequels ditched any attempts to pose philosphical questions and went for CGI mecha shooting at each other, and Hong Kong-wirework flying duels. Just a glossier DragonBall Z. What philosphical conundrum is explored with Agent Smith and Neo bouncing off each other for 20 minutes in the rain? Men in armoured suits fighting robot squid?
The worst slide from aublime into idiocy by sequels since Jaws.
A true geek would use wargames2.mgm.com.
Too bad the concept of subdomainms seems beyond most companies. And registrars and the like actively promote the proliferation of separate .com domains for every purpose, that often after a year or so are neglected and end up as phishing or porn sites, where subdomains cost nothing and last as long as the parent domain.
Perhaps in a general sense of providing an Internet service, not just the wires. For instance a Usenet or email subscriber service; anyone who hosts a site with a forum (which is almost everyone these days). Lots and lots of people who provide access could be found responsible for their users.
The problem is that while Google can afford a barrister, your average blogger can't. Your average small ISP can't, for that matter. So it very quickly leads to only large corporations daring to publish anything for fear of crippling legal defence costs.
Cute. So we're all cunts here then.
In China pirated goods are sold in shops and street markets.
How have you restricted readership of your comments to those people?
Yes. Exactly. Making fun of the recently deceased, especailly those who were murdered by a psychopath, leaving their familes in shock and mourning, is forbidden in any civilised society. Regardless of whether you think they were saintly or not. And if you want to "pierce the hypocricy, and remind people that normally they don't give a hooker a second thought", well, think of a way to do it that actually makes that point instead of the point that these women were worthless and deserved to be killed. Because having your tongue in cheek on a subject like this while their bodies are still yet unburied is being obnoxiously insensitive, and in person would get you vilified and attacked yourself.
No doubt at all. Click on the BBC link. Then you find a web page without any mention of Skype.
Actually, they don't. If anyone had cared to RTFA, they'd see only normal numbers. Unless you've installed a Skype toolbar and imagine the links it makes are actually on the BBC site. Hint: Look at the source HTML. Just numbers, no links at all.
Read the Snopes article, it explains what seems to be the history of the story. Note that no version of the story names the woman who was supposed to have been forced to work in a brothel, or gives any other verifiable facts. Once a story gets on a wire service, it will go everywhere. The newspapers just cut and paste them to fill required space.
Like a lot of "it could have happened" stories, you have to think that if it did really happen, there would have been a lot more fuss made and the person involved would have done the media circuits and/or started a legal case.
Which idiot wrote the headline without even looking at TFA?
Note there are no names or dates in that stpory. It's an urban legend. Never happened. http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Of course they are. Unlike "technology analysts" who are on a Microsoft retainers while pretendng to be impartial. There's too much PR masquerading as news, and not a little gets posted her, for that matter.
This isn't a random website, it's the public transport site of a city. I don't know how corporatised it is, but in any case they have a greater duty to be accessible to the citizens of the city than your average commercial enterprise.
No one said that. But they should be able to be purchased that way if you want, and at a lesser cost because no matter what bullshit spin about it being cheaper to buy a PC with Windows than without, it's the consumers who have made Bill Gates the richest man in the world. He didn't get that way by subsidising everyone's PC. So whatever discount is offered up front is more than covered by a hidden, larger, cost going to MS.
Bad analogy, like most car analogies. You actually have to drive the car out of the dealer's. So it needs to be ready to go. But regardless, I'm sure most car dealers would be happy to put your choice of tyres on if you asked before handing over your money. And there isn't one tyre company that produces 95% of all tyres.
What he's saying may be idiotic, but he's not an idiot, he's a lawyer making a case for his employer. Do you think Jimmy Cochran believed that OJ was innocent?
In what way is it exclusive? Perhaps it excludes plot, character development, and good writing?
It just means that the dipshit who submitted it took the headline of TFA "Exclusive: Third Stargate series in development" and mangled it into his summary without apparently understanding the journalistic meaning of "exclusive".
I said "except spammers". They're already breaking the law by pushing kiddie porn and bestiality so this proposal will hardly make any difference either way. And I rather doubt they're "targetting children". They just send it to everyone. Kids don't have any money to spend buying porn. They're amoral businessmen, there's no profit in corrupting children.
The difference is that if you don't want to see porno cartoons, no one is making you (except perhaps spammers and goatse-style "pranksters"). But if Camel is using Joe's iamge all over the place, I can't avoid it. More to the point, children can't avoid it.
Yep. They should be allowed to pilot airplanes and do brain surgery too.
Is anyone reminded of when Al Pacino went for a drive in Scent of a Woman? Hoo-Yah! Or more to the point, Ray Charles in Blues Brothers warning off the shoplifter?
The said former sex-offender is already forbidden from contacting kids like your daughter. If he did that he's back in the can anyway. Besides if not regitering his email is the only thing you have on him, I doubt that alone is going to send him away. His lawyer can claim the paperwork was lost, etc, etc.
When they find their registered address is blocked from MySpace, how long will it take even a not-very-smart pervert to work out he should get another one? All it's done is forced all the perverts to cover their tracks BEFORE they've done anything. About as useful as the No-Fly list. As if Osama bin Laden would book a ticket under his own name. But every poor guy called Mohammed is put through the wringer.