Posts by Mad Mike

Re: Learn to swim friends.

I think there are a few places more at risk than Kent!! Not least of all, London. Doesn't need that much of a sea level rise to drown London. That's why the Thames barrier is there.........

Rather than let them drown, would it simply be cheaper and easier to move them to somewhere else?

@Himalayaman.

"When the disease is slow death.... no.".

But is that what the disease causes? Indeed, is there even a disease? We don't really know the answer to either of these questions at the moment.

Indeed so. Predicting the future, especially around technology, is almost impossible. Simply look at predictions of even 20-30 years ago about today, let along 50 years or longer. So, who knows what will happen in the future and what our energy needs will be. Simply look at the energy required for servers of the past against a current server of the same processor power. The difference is astounding.

Re: Here's a suggestion...

The big problem with all this is understanding the problem. Any attempt to create a solution to an unknown (or not well understood) problem is, at best, a very hit and miss affair. At the moment, we don't really understand the problem at all. Both sides of the argument point at this and that phenomenon and claim it supports their view. Undoubtedly, the recent storms and issues will be caused by man made climate change according to one side and simply natural variance in climate to the other.

Unless we can truly understand the problem and come up with real proof of what is happening and what this will cause, how can we create a solution? Just about every prediction that is made (on both sides) fails to materialise and then out come all the excuses. Our failure to predict what will happen in a few years time clearly shows just how little we understand the mechanisms etc. behind global climate. So, how can we implement a solution (or at least mitigation). After all, a volcanic eruption or two and all our efforts are put to waste!!

In the meantime, people are really, really suffering today. These impacts we do know, are provable and can be predicted. Every time energy prices go up, more old people die of hypothermia in their houses etc.etc. Let's deal with these issues now and when we can identify the problem, then try and implement solutions or mitigations. We are causing untold misery now on the basis that something will happen if we don't. The current 'science' is looking thinner and thinner as time goes on and more observations show the predictions aren't happening.

Re: This is nonsense of the highest order.

"Which is why giving it away for free is not going to help, even a little."

Errrr. No. This is entirely the point.

They don't make any money from Windows, but they make a lot of money from the other software they sell that has to run on Windows, such as Office. They won't make any money from Office etc. if Windows isn't the principle operating system people use. So, it is critical they keep Windows position, even if they have to give it away for free.

Re: This is nonsense of the highest order.

Might cause problems with the EU, but a 'huge hole in MS income from OEM sales'? Nonsense. Microsoft makes almost nothing from OEM sales. They supply it for almost nothing to hardware manufacturers as a means of ensuring their operating system is the predominant. That's the exact mechanism they used to get where they are today. Supplying Windows for free would cost them almost nothing. They make their money predominantly from corporate users of their software, especially Office and the like.

Re: ..."a whopping 80 per cent of crashes ... involved male drivers"

@Dazed and Confused.

Absolutely correct. The stats on accidents are often wholly misrepresented. The following article gives the correct message, although it isn't in the best publication ;-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2012188/Women-drivers-ARE-dangerous-wheel-scientists-discover.html

The reality is that women have far more accidents than men when you allow for distance travelled etc. However, they tend to have smaller accidents, so the total value of the insurance claims is smaller than for men. Basically, women tend towards bumper clashes in car parks, whereas men tend towards leaving the road at high speed and hitting pedestrians or trees etc. Stereotype.....certainly, but actually true.

So, the reality is that women ARE (on average) worse drivers, but men cost more due to the greater level of aggression and the size of the accidents.

Re: Copying from the BBC

Err. So, you've said I'm wrong, but then admitted I'm right. To quote you:-

"while SiS is the official name of the agency"

That's all I've been saying. The organisation in question is called SIS, not MI-6. SIS is their title. MI-6 is simply what people know them as, largely due to literature and films, such as the Bond films. Sir John Sawyers is not the head of MI-6, but the head of SIS. I would have hoped people in IT would appreciate the importance of being precise.

Presumably, as your information appears to come from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Military_Intelligence, you would appreciate that it says MI-6 is the liaison with SIS. Therefore, even back then, SIS was never actually MI-6. They were different. One was SIS, one was the liaison. The article doesn't say that MI-6 became SIS, largely because it didn't!! So, SIS has never been officially known and titled MI-6.

It is quite amusing however, that SIS has even started referring to itself by using names other than the correct one!! One of those circumstances where fiction is affecting real life.

Re: Copying from the BBC

Interesting. Downvotes, but no comments. Perhaps people would like to comment on exactly what is factually wrong with what I've said. We need the news to be facts and to be correct. Go to WWW.MI6.GOV.UK and it redirects to WWW.SIS.GOV.UK. Yes, they've even vaguely started referring to themselves using MI6, but it isn't the name of the organisation. BBC journalists need to get their facts right and they get them wrong all the time. And I quote from their 'About' section

"The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), often known as MI6"

Often known as, but wrongly known as. Look at the history of the military intelligence sections and you'll see MI-6 doesn't exist these days.

Re: Need to figure out what we are going to do with the waste.

Radioactive waste disposal is not an issue of reality, but one of scaremongering propaganda. Many people don't understand there is such a thing as background radiation and that they are actually exposed to radiation every day. Start telling them that there is Uranium in water and they'll look at you as if you're mad. It's simple ignorance and it's really easy for loons to use a bit of propaganda to make these people do anything they like. If the loony greens (not all greens, but some) would start dealing in facts rather than the rubbish they spout, this would all go away.

The exact reverse also happens. People working in WW1 munitions factories often turned yellow. This was actually them being poisoned, but because nobody said anything about it and the official line was "it's OK", they simply carried on. The massive health issues and deaths were just another casualty of the war.

Re: controllable?

Wow, 8-900 square miles of the earths surface is uninhabitable!! That's a percentage so small, I can't be bothered to type all the leading zeros. The immediate waters around the area are also a problem, but the loss of food is tiny. This is also only the case because water is leaking from the land. Once this stops, the sea will revert back to normal very, very quickly. Dilution is very rapid in the oceans etc. So, the impact is really quite tiny. And this is one of how many accidents over how many years that have caused problems?

Now, look at the wholesale destruction, deaths and effective poisoning of the land area caused by fossil fuel generation over the years and the many tens of millions who have died as a result. Start with those mining coal and dying of lung disease. Move onto the forests in various areas of the world (say Scandinavia) destroyed by acid rain. Anybody who thinks that even one of the worst nuclear accidents comes anywhere close to fossil fuel issues is completely ignorant of the facts.

Fossil fuels kill gradually over time and therefore the deaths and damage are normally overlooked. Becomes part of 'normal' life. Whereas because nuclear accidents tend to happen quicker and be more obvious, they have a completely disproportionate media impact.

Also, bear in mind that most nuclear accidents are caused by human error. Maybe design isn't great either in some cases. Chernobyl was caused by scientists messing around with the reactor. Fukishima was again made worse by poor decision making. For instance. The containment buildings were blown apart by hydrogen explosions because they didn't immediately vent it like they should. Vent a little slightly radioactive hydrogen into the atmosphere or loose the containment building? Should be a no brainer really.

Re: It's a sad state of affairs

@Velv.

"If you want to bring murders into it, would you immediately free a serial murderer just because one of their victims turned out to be a paedophile? One right does not make up for lots of wrongs."

Interesting standpoint. So, you're saying that murdering people should be considered morally OK under certain circumstances (victim is a paedophile). Or, is it rather than both have committed heinous crimes and both should be punished for them all. You seem to be suggesting people should be allowed to murder paedophiles and even rewarded in some way for this (what you refer to as a "right" above).

Re: What will the American people do?

@mad_dr

"The thing is, Mike; what would you expect them to do if they DO strongly disagree with the sentence?"

I know it's difficult. This is a prime case of not doing anything till it affects you personally and by then, it's too late. A wonderful example is Nazi Germany. Plenty of people objected very strongly to what was going on the 30s, but they just kept it to themselves, in fear. The Nazis created the brownshirts to help enforce that by upping the ante. If the Germans had actually stood up during the 30s, it is quite possible WWII might not have happened.

Unfortunately, these days, morals don't come very high up peoples agendas. When people protest (or sometimes even riot), I may not agree with their point of view, but I sure as hell respect them for actually standing up for something. More people should do it. Perhaps then, politicians will become better as this would seem to be about the only way of making them more accountable. The elections we laughably hold certainly aren't a means to do that.

Re: No....

@Steve Knox.

"No, but you can say that it is always illegal. He's not going to jail for a moral wrong; he's going to jail for breaking the law.

The law is not a moral construct."

There is a well known principle in law that you may break one law in order to prevent a greater crime. There have been numerous cases in the US on this very issue and it has been upheld.

So, the question is are war crimes a greater crime than disclosing classified documents. If the answer is yes, he is allowed to break the law in order to release them and a court will back this (as has happened before). If the answer is no, the US is effectively saying that war crimes aren't much of a crime!!

Also, if he should go to jail because what he did is illegal (regardless of morals), then you're saying people who release documents from companies (under whistleblower) are equally then liable for civil action by the company and should loose. The whistleblower notion is irrelevant as it's a breach of their contract, therefore opening them up to civil action.

I know there's a tendency to prosecute laws on the strict wording of it in a blind manner these days, but all laws are effectively based on some moral basis and as such, the law is effectively based on morals.

Re: No....

@Tom 38.

"I expect the judge may have agreed with you, if that is what he leaked. He didn't do this, he leaked as much of everything that he could, and trusted Assange to filter out what is sensitive, like names of translators working for the military, from what is 'newsworthy', like video of civilians being massacred.

Manning's job for his country was to protect that sensitive information from being disclosed, which he really failed at."

Don't get me wrong in this, I think Manning deserved something. Yes, he released more than he should have. I'm not sure if this was due to naivety or not really thinking. Maybe he expected others to do some of the checking and redacting as appropriate and they didn't do it.

Also, it may have been he had to grab everything and get it out quickly as he was likely to be detected and caught quite quickly. Maybe he didn't believe he had the time and chance to do the filtering, so got a lot out with the idea of him or others doing the filtering afterwards. After all, someone taking that amount of documents was likely to be found quickly, so taking time to filter may not have been an option.

As someone else has said, I think the problem is that they've tried him for everything rather than the more pragmatic, 'what was not in the public interest'. If they'd done that, I think people would have agreed much more. By trying him for everything, they've effectively said that evidence of war crimes must not be released if its classified regardless.

Re: No....

You can't say that leaking classified documents is always wrong. There have to be times when leaking classified documents is right.....for instance when containing evidence of grievous crimes. After all, many of these documents were only classified in the first place to hide the wholesale breaking of laws, the Geneva convention etc. going on, so making it impossible to reveal classified documents for any reason just gives them a simple and easy way of hiding crimes.

I agree that classified documents should not be leaked for fun or when the crimes revealed are pretty trivial, but this definitely wasn't the case here.

Re: And?

@NomNomNom.

"the difference is they can't stop it"

But, generally, this simply isn't any different to other mechanisms. If you're getting abused in the playground, how do you get it to stop? Go to a teacher? Probably make it worse and won't stop it. If someones scrawling things on walls etc., how do you stop it? If someone knows your address, how do you stop abusive letters? In the case of the girl who killed herself, why was she still using the website up to the end? If it was so distressing, surely you would at least stop using it?

At the end of the day, if people want to say nasty things and threaten etc., they will. The only way to stop it is to take action against them through the police when they cross a boundary.

Re: Get rid of images of people

@MrXavia.

Absolutely agree. So, why was the campaign for a woman? Why was it not for a named person with their accomplishments listed?

Re: Get rid of images of people

@AC.

You don't get around bias by simply introducing another bias. Positive biases are as bad as negative biases. Therefore, campaigning for a woman is as bad as campaigning for a man. The campaign should be for an individual with the reason being their accomplishments.

It's just like in employment. You want the best person, regardless of whether they're male/female, gay/straight, black/white etc. So, you need to look at their qualifications and abilities, not their 'grouping'. By campaigning for a woman, you're simply campaigning for a grouping and being as biased as those who chose not to put that 'grouping' on banknotes in the past.

It's all about the individual regardless of their 'group'. So, by all means campaign for a person, but based on their contribution, not their 'grouping'.

Re: Get rid of images of people

@Loyal Commenter.

I certainly don't mean that I would have a problem with anyone of any sexual orientation, colour, creed, sex etc.etc. Frankly, I don't care who is on them. Irrelevant to me. What I was pointing out is that people should be on there because of their contribution to the country. Therefore, saying we should have a woman on there is as bad as saying we should have a man etc. The comment should be that XYZ should be on there because they did this or that. Their sex, sexual orientation, colour etc. is not relevant, their actions are. As you rightly say, Turing could be a good candidate because of his brilliance and contribution, not because he was gay. However, just as the campaign was to put a woman on banknotes, the campaign would probably be to put a gay person on there. The campaign is focused on the wrong thing.

So, let's have campaigns to say XYZ person should be on there and list their contributions rather than campaigns to say XYZ group should be represented.

Hence, I get rather upset with pressure groups that say someone should be on there because of some 'group' they're in. As people seem obsessed with grouping people by some characteristic rather than their acts, the easiest way is simply not to have anyone on there.

Get rid of images of people

I'm all for getting rid of the varied images on the back of banknotes. All it does is encourage people to run campaigns to have someone from group X or group Y on it. Today it's women, tomorrow it'll be a black person or a homosexual or a XYZ. All it does is cause division all the time. No matter what you do, there'll always be some group or another that feels it hasn't been equally represented. We don't have images of notable people on the backs of coins, so why do so on notes?

This isn't to say I denigrate the impact women have made on society and the leaps they have caused/supported. It's just I'm fed up with all these pressure groups all the time.

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

@John Sager.

Absolutely spot on. National Insurance was aptly named. The average life expectancy was little higher than the pension age in those days. Politicians have refused to deal with this timebomb for decades. It was obvious even in the 60s and certainly the 70s. They could have gradually raised the pension age to keep the average retirement years the same proportion. We now have an average life expectancy of about 85ish, which suggest the best part of 20 years in retirement, funded by the same contributions that funded either nothing or a few years at best in the past. Simply doesn't work.

The other aspect to National Insurance was the NHS, which has been a great success, but in many ways, too much. It now deals with far more than was ever expected and therefore the costs have gone exponential and will continue unless something is done about it. There are many treatments now available that would be laughed at by those who created it. People are beginning to expect it to cover just about anything medical, which is simply not practical. There needs to be a real debate on what is and what is not covered by the NHS. For instance.....weight loss surgery. If someone doesn't have the will to diet and reduce weight, is it up to the NHS to come up with some other solution? The best solution is dieting, not surgery which has all sorts of nasty side effects. What about IVF? What about plastic surgery? What about self-inflicted illnesses, such as those associated with long term smoking?

Not saying what's right and what's wrong, but people need to realise these can't all be funded and a grown up debate needs to be had on what can be afforded and is reasonable.

Re: Sense at last

'You said it yourself:

A few years time.

So my 8 year old will be in a few more years time.....

Which is pretty much what I would anticipate.

My 11 year old will be drinking in a few years time too. Doesn't mean she will be getting her hands on the booze today.

Kids are born innocent and develop maturity in line with understanding and responsibility. The fact they can get something at 18 is not an excuse to give it them at 7.'

Absolutely agree, but how does this solution prevent that? Anyone who's been in IT for any length of time can remember the days of the original content filtering. How it caused so many problems with false positives/negatives it was just a nightmare and not worth the grief. I remember Websense (downloaded URL lists) blocking the conservative website as extreme politics, but allowing the BNP!! This will result in so much grief, many households will have to turn the filter off. I also remember a friend who looked up Molten Brown (as in the cosmetics) and managed to get into a porn site by accident. So, are we banning Molten Brown as search terms and doing a company out of business? If it was on a per person basis, I would have more support, but it isn't and is never likely to be. So, it is doing absolutely nothing to protect your 7 year old and just inconveniencing everyone.

Also, if your 7 year old with no sexual feelings found a porn website, I imagine they wouldn't care less. Probably wouldn't understand and would go back to looking for Elmo of whatever. If your child is of an age and sexual maturity where it means something to them, then you should have already spoken to them about it and therefore they should be savvy.

Re: Sense at last

'Good luck educating the parents of the UK, I look forward to hearing your proposal for that scheme. Ever seen Jeremy Kyle? There are 50,000 kids in the UK that have had to be placed in foster care, and those are just the ones bad enough to be taken from parents entirely. Your happy 2.4 home might not be one of them, congrats. turn off the filter and have the relationship with your kids you describe. But next door little Mercedes could be watching an ass smoothie and wondering if its normal.'

So, what you're suggesting is we assume every parent is an idiot and stop trying to raise the standard of parenting. That is a guarantee that things will get worse no matter what else we do. A lot of the problems today is the standard of parenting and on the few occasions I've seen Jeremy Kyle, I'm amazed half of them haven't had their children taken from them. Teenage girls don't generally get pregnant because they've seen a few skin flicks. They get pregnant because their parents probably did as well and now it's quite normal. Plus, of course, all the benefits available. A good few through simple ignorance and stupidity. All these are cured by quality parenting, something you wish to ignore and simply move to an internet filter instead. That'll work then......not.

'They aren't, thanks for your concern,despite their protests because "their friends are"- but as a NM at a secondary school I think I can give a pretty good insight into what's going on with young people from 11-18 as I have around 1000 to look after on a daily basis.'

Interesting that you think staff working in a school have a better idea of what children do than their parents!! I certainly hope that isn't the case in my case. Remembering back to my earlier years, I remember what a lot of teachers thought was happening and it used to amuse us no end to manipulate this to our advantage. The teachers who had realised were normally the ones who were ignored and this is especially so now with league tables etc. After all, teachers can't possibly admit what's happening as that would result in a trip down the tables etc. and failed OFSTEDs etc.

'They dont make the videos, but they should be more responsible for dealing with what is posted on there and preventing it redistribution. Should we allow the BBC to show beheadings too?'

You know something, in some senses I do. People are so divorced from reality these days, I think we need to go back the other way a bit. I'm forever amazed that children are quite willing to eat meat all day long and yet the TV has to show all kinds of warnings etc. whenever the insides of an abattoir are shown. Quite happy to eat it, but not so happy to understand how it got on your plate. Perhaps if people saw and realised some of the more nasty elements of the world, they might care more about some things or in the case of MPs, make better decisions. It's very easy to talk about beheadings and be all righteous about it when you haven't seen one. It's all words. However, when you've seen one, you realise it's about a lot more than that. Same for any form of execution and many other things. Too many people talk about things they've never experienced or even seen (including most MPs) and frankly it shows.

'In your opinion, because you read the Reg and know how to get round them. I don't want my kids, or anyone else's kids stumbling across stuff by accident. That's the point of this. Noone is claiming it to be an undefeatable firewall.'

If your kids are intelligent and talk to their friends, they've almost certainly already got the knowledge to get round these right now. So, how is implementing this doing any good at all? Clearly, you've never seen what kids look at on your schools computers as I know for certain they've got round all the filters in my local schools. Quite a lot of the wireless networks are also cracked and they're using their mobile phones on the schools wireless!! The whole point of this debate is that generally kids that stumble across it by accident will just move on and not care. Those that search it out at some point will find a way round the system. This is largely because the two groups are pretty much age based.

@Synkrox.

'You expect to teach all parents how to filter the internet and enforce fine-grain control over each device?'

You simply buy a readily available product to install on their PC. They're not perfect, but they're very easy to use. Problem is, some parents don't care enough to pay the money. Another alternative would be for government to pay for the development of such a product and then supply it free on request.

'Yes, parents SHOULD take responsibility for their kids, but a lot don't know/understand/care and its the kids that suffer when they come across stuff that they shouldn't.'

Yes, I appreciate that. However, if children suffer as a result of their parents neglect, that is the job of social services. However, whether they do suffer as a result of no filtering is far from proven anyway.

'Honestly if you are that bothered about looking at filth then turn YOUR filter off. Hardly a big deal and some protection is better than no protection for those that do need it.'

No, I am a caring parent and therefore have implemented a suitable solution to try and get the worst of it. It's by no means perfect and I'm quite aware my eldest has found ways round it. But then, he is 16, so less of an issue now. Not caring or being unwilling to learn enough to do it are simply symptoms of bad parenting. A caring parent will learn if necessary.

Re: Ha ha!

@kingsmill

I think you're missing the point here.

'Crikey, you seem to think that the CRB process is foolproof (and that in depth). Sadly, it isn't. It doesn't capture all the weirdos. But, hey, it does capture some, so that's a plus point. See also below.'

Nope, I don't think the CRB check is foolproof. I think it is almost as badly implemented as the idea of an internet block. It may catch a few people, but has been shown many times, also allows huge numbers through. What I was saying is that they'll probably put refusing the filter down on a CRB check as some sort of indicator that you like porn and are therefore probably at least partway to being a kiddie fiddler. That is such a leap and so far from the truth, it defies belief, but is a likely misuse of this sort of list.

'Do you have any hard evidence to suggest that it won't do ANY good? Those that can bypass it will, those that can't (or don't know) won't. So I'd suggest it will do SOME good. Perhaps not as much as the lawmakers would like, but some. It'll certainly help out those parents who have tried to educate their children, but, you know, they are in their teens and don't listen. But kudos to you for (sort of) admitting you'd be embarrassed to have the porn filter lifted. So would I...'

I won't be in the slightest embarrassed. What's to be embarrassed about? However, I do understand that some people will be and I don't see the point of making them embarrassed for no benefit. If this was likely to work at anything about minimal level, I would say this is an acceptable exchange, but it won't. So, why make people embarrassed for no benefit? That strikes me as pretty poor behaviour and some sort of moral revenge by the holier than thou. People who think sex and naked bodies are somehow wrong and perverse etc. (from your reply, I'd include you) getting their own back on people who simply accept sex and nakedness as part of nature and life.

'It is indeed their choice. But you'd be a little gutted, wouldn't you? And you wouldn't want your mates letching over her, would you? All I'm saying is just think about the fact that it's someone's daughter the next time you have a cheeky view; it'll change your view on the world.'

No, I wouldn't. Would it embarrass me? Probably, yes. Would I dislike my friends letching over her? Probably, yes. But, I'm a good enough parent to put my embarrassment and discomfort to one side in order to support my daughter in her choice of lifestyle. It's interesting here that you identify daughters particularly, as if you view it as acceptable for a son to take part in porn, but not your daughter? What's the difference? Suggests more than a whiff of sexism on your part methinks.

'Ridiculous.'

So, you don't have any reasonable response to my comment about your daughter taking part in a Hollywood movie in less than full attire and therefore resort to offhand distain. Actually tell me why appearing in a Hollywood film naked and having sex with someone is particularly different? Are they still naked? Are they still appearing to have sex (whether actual or not)? From your earlier comments, I would suggest you would care very much about this, but don't want to undermine your case by admitting this.

'It's very difficult to respond to this without sounding anything but, but after having spent my formative years (and quite a few thereafter) in a rugby club where the attitude to porn was extremely relaxed, I'd say you were a little off here. Let's not just assume that all those in favour are 'conservative and uneasy' and those against are porn junkies that don't want to have to 'fess up.'

I'm afraid all your replies point towards my comments. You seem to be trying to take the moral high ground and am clearly (by your own comments) uneasy with nakedness or sex in general. Maybe this is as a response to the porn you saw at the rugby club. I don't know. However, I don't really need to reply to this, as your previous replies speak volumes for me.

Re: I'm replying to everybody in one post here...

'I will make one other point that I've not seen made: while I can install filters and supervise my kids, I can't be there when they are round a friend's house.'

Agreed. However, how does this help there either? After all, they could have turned the filter off!! As a responsible parent, you should maybe ask them where the computer is etc.etc. and act accordingly. Maybe find out what their policy is?

'The evidence for harm is mucky. But any damage will be long term and subtle, hence my decision, on balance, to be cautious.'

Agreed, but if seeing something causes you to do it, what about violent films? Presumably, these should all be banned as well? After all, the exact same argument would apply. The killers of tomorrow are bred watching the violent films of today......

@AC.

'

Jonny 5 year old would see porn, and click back and go back to trying to find whatever he wanted...

As a parent you need to get your kids balanced before they start searching for that stuff..

Nudity should not be a taboo... but I bet places such as the british naturism website will be blocked by this!'

Too right. Adults are all too quick to put their bias on other people. A 5 year old will see nudity or whatever and be totally uninterested. They were looking for something on Elmo from Sesame Street or whatever and will simply ignore it. Older ones, who understand a bit more are probably already looking for this stuff anyway. It's amazing how many adults attribute sexual thoughts to children way too young for this simply because the adult has sexual thoughts. School know about this and its a common theme in complaints. Parents complain that their 5 year old girl was grabbed inappropriately by a 5 year old boy. This all goes ballistic and they fail to see sense because they're looking at it with sexual eyes rather than through the eyes of a 5 year old. Their daughter gets upset because of what their parents are suggesting. In reality, they were simply playing tag or whatever in the playground and there was absolutely nothing sexual about it at all. However, the boys parents need to get involved etc.etc. My wife sees this sort of thing in school all the time.

Re: Ha ha!

'The (only?) reason why dissenters don't want an opt-out filter applied is because they don't want the embarrassment of asking for it to be removed! I'm thinking of the similar premise in 'Lock, Stock...''

No, it's because bigots will use it against you at every opportunity. I can imagine that being something that gets revealed on a CRB check. After all, they're already trying to make the link between watching porn and being a child molester/sex criminal. And, yes, embarrassment comes into it as well. Why make a whole raft of people embarrassed when the solution won't even do any good at any level!! That's pointless and actually quite nasty in its own right.

'All the other arguments for 'people will just get around it', 'educate the parents' etc might be partially true, but just because it won't work in 100% of cases doesn't mean you shouldn't implement it (on that basis alone).'

This is a matter of degree. It it took a long time, or a lot of knowledge to get round, then maybe this argument would hold up. However, as it takes about 15 minutes research on the net and most kids learn how to get round it in school these days (from their peers, not the school), then what's the point. In other words, if the solution were 90% effective, fair enough. However, as this one is certainly not out of single digits and arguably barely above zero, what's the point.

'And next time you're having a cheeky glimpse at the latest big busted beauty earning her corn on t'interweb, just picture your own daughter...'

And now you reveal your real feelings and motivation. If your daughter (or mine) has chosen this as their career path, that's their choice. We can like it or not, but once they become adults, it's their choice. We can try to talk them out of it, point out all the negatives etc.etc, but if they continue, that's what being an adult is all about. It's their lives. Given the way films are going these days, presumably you wouldn't want your daughter appearing in Hollywood blockbusters either?

Seems like you're very conservative and uneasy around anything related to sex.