Posts by wolfetone

It's interesting to read the second page regarding Miranda and his detainment under the Terrorism Act, especially after last week when Liz Truss (which is ye olde English for "Village Idiot") stated they would be getting rid of the European Bill of Human Rights and establishing a British version - exactly what that would entail she never said. While the authorities said that no rules were broken when detaining him, it did infringe on his human rights under the European bill. But it's as clear as the light on the screen I am using that he was taken in to questioning because of the Snowden revelations and the fact his partner documented it all via The Guardian. I also recall their computers being seized under the same Terrorism Act? I think when you remember this case, which I had forgotten about, it's a bit clearer to what this Government wants to achieve with the British Bill of Human Rights. Every one has a right, unless of course we think you've been naughty.

But how does one defend their innocence, under a system of "innocent until proven guilty", without the right to a lawyer or lengthy detention without a court appearance? Readers of The Daily Fail and The S*n, possibily The Torygraph too, won't think like this. But if I come back in to the country after reading a Wikileaks article regarding the Snowden revelations, am I a terrorist or someone who is researching terrorism? Likewise am I more liable to be detained coming from Ireland (for example) because I bought a balaclava in Cork because I want to keep my face warm when riding a Motorbike, because I bought terrorist material? I know the latter is unlikely and it's conjecture, but it's a serious question to ask when the partner of a journalist is detained purely on the basis of what their partner has done has questioned the Government's tactics. Where does the line start and end?

The Government in the UK, the USA, et al are legalising the illegal. They are elected representatives, who we have chosen to represent us and do what's right for us. However, powers like this errode that trust to a point where, unless there's an election every 5 years, how can we hold our MP's to account? These are dangerous days, not for our safety but for our liberty. For the last 15 years this freedom has been curtailed. Not by terrorists, but by countless governments who have sought to "protect" the public from "terrorists", who are they allowing custodians of the law to hold innocent members of the public to account through sheer Government embarrassment? We know all too well that encryption, aparently, helps terrorists - even though it's documented that Al Qaeda tell their members to take the batteries out of their phones and leave them miles apart before attending meeting places.

So who's helping who protecting who from what? Because the older I get, the less I believe there is some big nasty man in a beard wanting to blow me up. Rather some older gentleman in a suit wants to know what I'm doing, a la 1984.

"..for some pointed hair management issues.."

I think that's a Dilbert reference.

Salvation?

The minute Nokia come back out with a revised 3310, capable of taking photos and email, the iPhone will be no more.

Fantastic. We all know masturbation reduces the risk of prostate cancer in men, so now us men can gaily keep cancer away without the location* being a problem.

*if on holiday in Italy.

He's right. Again.

Some people will be offended by his bluntness, but stop for a moment to consider how offended he is by a developer trying to push a bad idea in to the kernel.

He is doing what Microsoft should've done with Windows years ago and prevent hack jobs from entering in to the code, which are then built upon in later updates, which then can't be removed without massive re-writes to all of the code that relies on it.

I Knew It

Hugh Hefner only has those "girlfriends" for show. He doesn't do anything with them.

Knew it. Knew it knew it knew it.

Prostitution doesn't damage society. Society puts these men and women in danger by forcing them to work on the streets, alone, and without any sort of protection. People want sex, people need money and are willing to provide that service. That hasn't, and will not, change. Yet we still remove protections for these workers because we don't agree with their line of work? Already my feelings towards this "professor" are already poor.

The fact remains, however, that the human imagination will always come up with ruder and cruder methods to get ones rocks off. Take the McChicken-lovin' man, I can bet you any money there are men - regardless of age - who have considered what it felt like or have went out and bought one to have a go with. What are we meant to do now? Ban McChicken burgers from being sold because someone used one for a wank?

Bruce Springsteen, in "Johnny 99", got it absolutely right:

"Well your honor I do believe I'd be better off dead

So if you can take a man's life for the thoughts that's in his head"

The human imagination, the thoughts, the wants etc, will always exceed the boundaries that can ever be thought of by another human.

*slow hand clap*

Well bloody done Dropbox. It's good to see you're addressing the problem, it's only taken 4 years.

How broken can it actually be if it's been around since 1946 in its current form? Are people just looking for jobs to do or something?