Posts by Christoph 3317 publicly visible posts • joined 24 Dec 2007
Beanz Meanz Fatrz
How long a prison sentence do you get for being found in possession of a Jerusalem Artichoke?
As mentioned above how will they tell who did it? It's well known that the silent ones are the worst.
Though really if they are going to ban involuntary, unavoidable actions they should ban coughing which is known to spread diseases rather than fats which merely smell.
Some obvious problems:
Front car sees a gap in the outside lane and pulls out to pass. Do the following cars pull out, even if there's not enough gap?
Front car then pulls in again right in front of the lorry he passed. Do the following cars pull in, or wait until they pass the lorry? What happens if the lorry accelerates, or the front car decelerates?
BMW driver pulls into the middle of the line of cars, despite them being really close together.
BMW driver comes up behind the car at the back of the long queue and starts honking and flashing his lights.
"The distribution of child porn charges carry a tariff of up to 20 years behind bars though the circumstances of the case would seem to suggest punishment towards the lower end of this scale."
If he was deliberately and maliciously trying to falsely implicate another person for distributing child porn, I would personally expect the punishment to be towards the upper end of the scale.
If they implement this we can finally stop children being exposed to that obviously obscene Olympics logo on the net.
Of course they will still see it all over the place, but that's OK because it isn't on the internet so it doesn't count.
Do these imbeciles really think they can come up with a definition of 'porn' which a majority of people will agree on, *and* which will be stable enough to last a usable length of time, *and* will be easily applicable to new material and to new technical developments, *and* won't be trivially subverted, *and* won't be easily twisted to apply to them as well?
Haven't they even heard of the very first response to this kind of thing, to substitute the names of the relevant politicians for any 'rude' words they try to ban?
They are removing copies which have already been purchased from the customer's personal archive on their servers. And according to some reports they are insulting customers who try to get a refund.
See for instance http://theselfpublishingrevolution.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazon-in-book-banning-business.html
“Whilst convicted offenders understandably wish to disassociate themselves from this type of offence in any way possible, the devastating impact of child abuse on its victims must never be forgotten.”
What has the severity of the offence got to do with whether the accused is guilty? If it is an extreme offence with an extreme punishment, they should if anything be more careful not to convict the innocent. Not say "It was a devastating crime, therefore he must be guilty".
"Level 3 wants to compete with other CDNs, but pass all the costs of that business onto Comcast and Comcast's customers"
Fine. So let them do exactly that.
Comcast charges Level 3 for sending data that Comcast's customers have requested. So allow Level 3 to pass those costs on to those Comcast customers.
And tell those customers "You've paid Comcast for Internet access. Now pay Comcast again for the data you actually want, which they've already contracted to provide you for the existing charge".
They can pay Comcast twice for the same thing. Or they can move to another ISP. Or if they can't move, hullo class action lawsuit.
If I'm in a tube that's jam wedged with passengers and someone starts shouting like that right by my ear, I'm very worried that it might distract me so much that in trying to cover my ears I'd lose my grip on the handhold and my 16 stone will go crashing into him as the train lurches..
Given 'reasonable grounds' they are going to kill someone's domain? And perhaps destroy their business?
No need for a trial, or a chance to confront the accusers.
And they are going to take down any domain which republishes information? Exactly how will they do this for domains not ending in .uk?
Yes, of course there's stuff they have good reason to keep private. That's presumably the point of that comment - that the claim that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" is complete garbage.
But it's what we are told when we want to keep things private from government. So they are showing obvious hypocrisy.
That's a rather silly criterion. It excludes not only compacts and phones, but bridge cameras and the new EVIL cameras (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens) which have almost identical capabilities to DSLRs but are a bit smaller.
Just how are they going to tell which is which without taking the camera apart, or looking up the model number on the net?
And then there's this: http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/interactive/e60c/
This would imply an official classification of exactly what is and is not 'porn'. That's possible for limited cases like films, but is ludicrous for the Internet.
Whatever line they draw, someone is going to think it doesn't go far enough and will scream about the government letting their child see obscenities (because once this is in place, every failure of it is the fault of the authorities and Something Must Be Done!). "You let my child see pictures of unveiled women!".
So you get mission creep. You include more and more things because someone somewhere found them objectionable and complained that their children were being harmed.
How far do you go? Do you include everything that anyone ever found sexually stimulating? "Some people are into sheep, and you let my children see pictures of a farm!"
At which point you run headlong into Rule 34.
Is this sent as an attachment? If so, the recipient gets an unexpected email from an unknown source with a big attachment, and telling them to download some software to open it - what's the most likely thing they're going to do with it?
Even if it's just sent as a link it's going to look highly suspicious, and very likely get dumped as spam. In fact the spammers are going to seize on this and send fake ones.
Will they also include the Pastafarians?
"modern pagans, unlike ancient druids, are more concerned with focussing personal energies through ritual than human sacrifice"
The custom of the Druids
Was to drink fermented fluids
And run naked through the woo-ids
And that's good enough for me
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
