Not in my country. I've turned down job offers and turned down requests by senior management on the grounds I refuse to fly to the US because of their invasive biometrics programme.
The senior management expressed surprise, requested confirmation from me in writing of my reasons and then let it drop.
Obviously the job offers represent a missed opportunity, but it would be wrong to accept a job advertised as requiring travel to the US knowing in advance that I will not be permitted entry.
I don't think it's unreasonable to update an old communications decency law to include new communications mechanisms, or to provide protection to people from excessive harassment.
I think it's not inappropriate to consider whether the law applies to the statement made. Approximately 8 tenths of a second later the policeman involved can focus his efforts on real crimes.
A Muslim woman publicly and prominently stands up against the Islamic religious authorities? I think there's every chance she's at risk of violence
At no point does a Tory councillor increase the likelihood of such violence, whether through jokes or otherwise. Anybody planning to hurt her for her religious views will not be influenced by a random Tory in Birmingham joking about something entirely different.
And she rightly says, "If I, as a Muslim woman, had said about him what he said about me then I would be arrested in these times of the war against terror."
Which is clearly bullshit, as a number of satirical zeitgeist shows on British television demonstrate on a weekly basis.
Hyperbolic joking about violence is not illegal, and claiming being a muslim makes it any different is merely religious trolling on her part.
Stoning people to death is clearly just wrong, and I do find it deeply ironic that she seems to dislike it only when she might be the victim.
Most users of the internet break that law regularly - let alone denizens of 4chan.
I hate the idea of laws against offending people - it's a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. Not the mention the complexity around the law offending me - maybe it's time for a private prosecution against the Government..
Due to UK laws I would hesitate from joking about having someone killed on the internet. Face to face I joke about it all the time. In the office, describing specific weapons I own.
Why should jokes be banned on the internet? Whichever cunt thought that one up should be dismembered (while still alive; please don't murder Tony Blair and blame me for it).
What Gareth Compton did falls almost exactly midway between Mill's two cases
wtf? You seriously think there was ever any remote likelihood that anybody would actually try and stone her to death?
(Obviously I'm talking about the UK; if she goes to Iran and fucks a married man then she finds out just how stupidly fucked up her particular brand of religion is).
it's not clear-cut that he's guilty, but I reckon it is clear-cut that he has a case to answer.
Oddly he may indeed actually be guilty, but only due to the badly constructed laws, not because he's inciting violence.
if I tell somebody "blow me", he should be able to file a sexual harrassment lawsuit against me?
Sort of, yes - in the workplace he can raise a grievance against you and if it's not dealt with to his satisfaction by the company, take the company to a tribunal.
You may not actually want to him to get on his knees and undo your fly but how is he to know this?
Lets face it, asking a girl in the office for a blow job will get you slung out pronto, so why should asking a bloke be any different?
DICE really have managed to take a very valuable and enjoyable brand (Battlefield) and exploit it to the extent that I just have no interest in it at all.
It went from being balanced, fun and accessible to requiring heavy time commitment to unlock the items needed to stay balanced, and as you've pointed out, started making it necessary to pay RL cash to compete.
I refuse to play games that explicitly require time or money invested to balance the game. If someone's more skilled because they've practiced more, then that's fair and I have incentive to learn from them. If someone has an advantage because the game gives them capabilities I lack then that's inherently unfair and I'm just not going to play.
What's the best equivalent to BF:V these days? Fast-paced well balanced quick-entry multiplayer FPS?
I've been fascinated by RailWorks 2, where buying the full bundle on steam is £520. I was sufficiently intrigued to go hunting for a community around that 'game' and found a forum full of people welcoming the opportunity to buy the newest DLC and celebrating the fact it was only £9 (for a single model of a single train).
I've gone from berating the developers for profiteering to admiring their identification of a niche market and meeting its needs.
Yeah, I wish I'd waited on Borderlands. The irony is that I can't get the DLC for much cheaper than you bought the whole bundle, even though I (happily) paid full price for the game.
Whether the main Borderlands plot was good or not, playing it was excellent fun and gave me many many hours entertainment.
The DLC may or may not be good, but until I can pick up all four DLCs for a tenner I wont find out. I'm happy to pay for a substantial expansion, I'll buy a sequel, but I refuse to effectively pay a subscription for a single-player game.
These days I'm just waiting for the GOTY or 'Gold' or 'Steam Bundle' versions. More game for less money.
Go to rightmove.co.uk and look at houses, flats and othe properties on there. 16x16 is a big room in the UK.
As a whole the UK is densely populated, but that includes the wide open spaces of Scotland and a several emptyish parts of England and Wales. So if you go for major population centres, the UK is very densely populated, bordering on stupid in some parts of London.
I commuted to work for three weeks between starting my current job and getting midweek accommodation within walking distance.
30 trains. 10 on time. 2 cancelled.
When I can go door to door with a 110 mile drive followed by a 1 mile walk to get to work in less time than a 20 mile train journey (from a friend's home), I'm happy to forgo the laptop, booze and toilet.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. An Angband playing mudder? I feel I should know you. But.. Poland?
What if it turns the victim on as he does it?
He may not mean it sexually but I know gay men that would enjoy this. Shit, make the TSA agent female and I might..
Not in my country. I've turned down job offers and turned down requests by senior management on the grounds I refuse to fly to the US because of their invasive biometrics programme.
The senior management expressed surprise, requested confirmation from me in writing of my reasons and then let it drop.
Obviously the job offers represent a missed opportunity, but it would be wrong to accept a job advertised as requiring travel to the US knowing in advance that I will not be permitted entry.
A dermatologist might very well need to see every inch of you.
Although when I went to a new dermatologist and he asked me to strip my response was, "I'd prefer not to."
He shrugged, said 'ok', and just examined me above the waist.
(don't ask what I was wearing below the waist.. lets just say I hadn't planned on a full body examination for a neck issue)
Unfortunately the car-bomb only set the terrorists on fire
Interesting use of the word 'unfortunately'.
I don't think it's unreasonable to update an old communications decency law to include new communications mechanisms, or to provide protection to people from excessive harassment.
I think it's not inappropriate to consider whether the law applies to the statement made. Approximately 8 tenths of a second later the policeman involved can focus his efforts on real crimes.
prosecuted under an antique law that should not even apply.
A 2003 law is hardly antique. It probably should apply. I just don't think his statement transgressed it.
More to the point, when was El Reg ever a newspaper!?
A Muslim woman publicly and prominently stands up against the Islamic religious authorities? I think there's every chance she's at risk of violence
At no point does a Tory councillor increase the likelihood of such violence, whether through jokes or otherwise. Anybody planning to hurt her for her religious views will not be influenced by a random Tory in Birmingham joking about something entirely different.
And she rightly says, "If I, as a Muslim woman, had said about him what he said about me then I would be arrested in these times of the war against terror."
Which is clearly bullshit, as a number of satirical zeitgeist shows on British television demonstrate on a weekly basis.
Hyperbolic joking about violence is not illegal, and claiming being a muslim makes it any different is merely religious trolling on her part.
Stoning people to death is clearly just wrong, and I do find it deeply ironic that she seems to dislike it only when she might be the victim.
Most users of the internet break that law regularly - let alone denizens of 4chan.
I hate the idea of laws against offending people - it's a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression. Not the mention the complexity around the law offending me - maybe it's time for a private prosecution against the Government..
Hmm. Just feed fanfold paper into the printer and position it so the output lands on top of them? Ingenious.
Due to UK laws I would hesitate from joking about having someone killed on the internet. Face to face I joke about it all the time. In the office, describing specific weapons I own.
Why should jokes be banned on the internet? Whichever cunt thought that one up should be dismembered (while still alive; please don't murder Tony Blair and blame me for it).
What Gareth Compton did falls almost exactly midway between Mill's two cases
wtf? You seriously think there was ever any remote likelihood that anybody would actually try and stone her to death?
(Obviously I'm talking about the UK; if she goes to Iran and fucks a married man then she finds out just how stupidly fucked up her particular brand of religion is).
it's not clear-cut that he's guilty, but I reckon it is clear-cut that he has a case to answer.
Oddly he may indeed actually be guilty, but only due to the badly constructed laws, not because he's inciting violence.
if I tell somebody "blow me", he should be able to file a sexual harrassment lawsuit against me?
Sort of, yes - in the workplace he can raise a grievance against you and if it's not dealt with to his satisfaction by the company, take the company to a tribunal.
You may not actually want to him to get on his knees and undo your fly but how is he to know this?
Lets face it, asking a girl in the office for a blow job will get you slung out pronto, so why should asking a bloke be any different?
There are enough UK readers that would recognise the quote immediately.
It's a fine example of early secularism in the UK :)
DICE really have managed to take a very valuable and enjoyable brand (Battlefield) and exploit it to the extent that I just have no interest in it at all.
It went from being balanced, fun and accessible to requiring heavy time commitment to unlock the items needed to stay balanced, and as you've pointed out, started making it necessary to pay RL cash to compete.
I refuse to play games that explicitly require time or money invested to balance the game. If someone's more skilled because they've practiced more, then that's fair and I have incentive to learn from them. If someone has an advantage because the game gives them capabilities I lack then that's inherently unfair and I'm just not going to play.
What's the best equivalent to BF:V these days? Fast-paced well balanced quick-entry multiplayer FPS?
I've been fascinated by RailWorks 2, where buying the full bundle on steam is £520. I was sufficiently intrigued to go hunting for a community around that 'game' and found a forum full of people welcoming the opportunity to buy the newest DLC and celebrating the fact it was only £9 (for a single model of a single train).
I've gone from berating the developers for profiteering to admiring their identification of a niche market and meeting its needs.
Yeah, I wish I'd waited on Borderlands. The irony is that I can't get the DLC for much cheaper than you bought the whole bundle, even though I (happily) paid full price for the game.
I've mostly given up buying games on release.
Whether the main Borderlands plot was good or not, playing it was excellent fun and gave me many many hours entertainment.
The DLC may or may not be good, but until I can pick up all four DLCs for a tenner I wont find out. I'm happy to pay for a substantial expansion, I'll buy a sequel, but I refuse to effectively pay a subscription for a single-player game.
These days I'm just waiting for the GOTY or 'Gold' or 'Steam Bundle' versions. More game for less money.
Which is ironic given who speaks it.
Can you add me to the "not buying" list please.
Do I get a discount for pre-booking my non-purchase in advance?
Go to rightmove.co.uk and look at houses, flats and othe properties on there. 16x16 is a big room in the UK.
As a whole the UK is densely populated, but that includes the wide open spaces of Scotland and a several emptyish parts of England and Wales. So if you go for major population centres, the UK is very densely populated, bordering on stupid in some parts of London.
I believe the DPA doesn't apply to private individuals.
I commuted to work for three weeks between starting my current job and getting midweek accommodation within walking distance.
30 trains. 10 on time. 2 cancelled.
When I can go door to door with a 110 mile drive followed by a 1 mile walk to get to work in less time than a 20 mile train journey (from a friend's home), I'm happy to forgo the laptop, booze and toilet.
That makes me want to move somewhere snow is a genuine possibility, just so I can build one too!