The BBC gleefully reports that "Office printers 'are health risk'"
This has been known about for decades. Indeed, more than 10 years ago, when I was a mere lad, I informed a friend's mother about this. She would have otherwise been moved into a cupboard of an office by the local NHS trust, along with a collection of printers spitting out ozone, and toner dust. Suffice to say, they were moved to a much better, well ventilated office.
The article tells us that the "researchers" want government to regulate air quality in offices...
Great, just what we need, more regulation, when common sense would do perfectly well.
"If regulation could make the world a better place,
then we would already all be living in paradise.
And clearly we are not."
- Ivor Tiefenbrun
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Uncivil partnerships
Yet another Auntie Beeb story that has made my blood boil...
"Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples" and "However, at present, co-habiting couples have very little legal protection."
Isn't that the whole point? If these people wanted legal protection, surely they'd... get married? (Be it a religious or a civil ceremony).
It's no surprise that fewer men are willing to get married these days - perhaps because of the Hurricane theory of women... Wet and wild when they come, and they take the house and car with them when they go, leaving you with nothing...
The Have Your Say folk are quite polarised on this subject too...
Ouch! So we want equality, but some will still be more equal than others when all is said and done?
Yep, I agree. Seems the obvious stance to take, wouldn't you think? Apparently not...
More on "equality" in separation:
Clearly, payment in blood is required. Don't get me started on the CSA.
I think I am seeing a common thread here...
Why don't we leave things the way they are, where people who want legal rights get married, those who don't, don't.
I am posting this with gritted teeth, knowing the messy divorce a friend went through recently, and another (unmarried) friend's separation...
I'll leave you with a quote from Kinky Friedman, on the subject of gay marriage, which was mentioned in passing...
"I support gay marriage - they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us"
* I see that Tory Heaven has also posted on this very subject today... It's only fair that Cato gets a mention and a link...
"Law is 'unjust' for unwed couples" and "However, at present, co-habiting couples have very little legal protection."
Isn't that the whole point? If these people wanted legal protection, surely they'd... get married? (Be it a religious or a civil ceremony).
It's no surprise that fewer men are willing to get married these days - perhaps because of the Hurricane theory of women... Wet and wild when they come, and they take the house and car with them when they go, leaving you with nothing...
The Have Your Say folk are quite polarised on this subject too...
"Until our society stops automatically allowing the female partner to take custody of the children then any talk of 'rights' is irrelevant.
The Woman get the house and the kids EVERYTIME.
The guy gets a damp bedsit flat and a stack of bills.
Is that equality in the 21st century?"
Ouch! So we want equality, but some will still be more equal than others when all is said and done?
"If you want rights, get married you freakin' whinging losers."
Yep, I agree. Seems the obvious stance to take, wouldn't you think? Apparently not...
"My partner and I have been together for 18 years and co-habiting for 12 yet we have little or no protection and few of the benefits that a couple are awarded immediately upon getting married. How is that fair?"
More on "equality" in separation:
"Breakfast featured an umarried couple with 3 kids who were splitting up: the female partner was complaining that she only got 50% of the house and the courts didn't take into account that she looked after the kids and that she needed more protection:
50% of all their assets plus three lots of child support will leave her ex in poverty. What more could she want- blood?"
Clearly, payment in blood is required. Don't get me started on the CSA.
"So, Living with my girlfriend for longer than 2 years is a serious liability, as if we split up under this new Scheme, I will have laws giving her rights to my belongings and money. This just is not right. You can bet this scheme will mainly benefit women who will always justify their right to their ex's money and property. It appears being a bloke in this country means you have no rights, just responsibilities to pay and pay some more."
I think I am seeing a common thread here...
Why don't we leave things the way they are, where people who want legal rights get married, those who don't, don't.
I am posting this with gritted teeth, knowing the messy divorce a friend went through recently, and another (unmarried) friend's separation...
I'll leave you with a quote from Kinky Friedman, on the subject of gay marriage, which was mentioned in passing...
"I support gay marriage - they have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us"
* I see that Tory Heaven has also posted on this very subject today... It's only fair that Cato gets a mention and a link...
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Hoots mon! An ASBO for that?
And from the Evening News:
In my fair city, some young lad was driving his car along the road, when a woman stepped out into the road. The young lad slowed down, and hooted the horn of his car at her in a "the big green light means it's my turn, not yours" manner.
The young lad is promptly pulled over by the local constabulary, and ASBO'd.
Perhaps he should have just run the woman over, rather than alerting her to the dangers of mindlessly walking into the middle of the road when it's not your turn.
Who are these people? How could the police possibly give the guy an asbo for that? Is there anyone left with common sense out there?
In my fair city, some young lad was driving his car along the road, when a woman stepped out into the road. The young lad slowed down, and hooted the horn of his car at her in a "the big green light means it's my turn, not yours" manner.
The young lad is promptly pulled over by the local constabulary, and ASBO'd.
Perhaps he should have just run the woman over, rather than alerting her to the dangers of mindlessly walking into the middle of the road when it's not your turn.
Who are these people? How could the police possibly give the guy an asbo for that? Is there anyone left with common sense out there?
Doesn't work like that...
In the words of the irritating bastard on that advert on the telly. I am, of course, referring to the internet.
The BBC Have Your Say is apparently populated by fuckwits who have no idea how the internet works. It's almost as bad as the Grauniad for people talking about things they know nothing about.
The topic which has caught my eye today, is the beating up of small children, by other small children, which is filmed and then posted on the interweb. Apparently this will be featured on Panorama, on Monday 30th July. Panorama used to be an interesting documentary to watch, but these days seems to be more of a mockumentary.
Anyway, back to HYS... Some of the knuckle-dragging inhabitants of Auntie's closet have come out with the following screamers:
"There are rules in broadcasting, and videos on the internet are just that."
Yes, and you must be this -> <- clever to use the internet... You have failed.
"This is another example of how the internet needs to be policed in exactly the same way as any other publishing media."
Err, but they're showing these clips on Panorama...
"I do not agree with censorship,but I feel that the IT managers could exercise some control over juvenile violence on these sites."
Perhaps they could use their mystical RegExp powers to stop kids fighting, end poverty, make it rain less in Edinburgh...
"Somebody, think of the children"
OK, the last one was me, but you get the idea.
And as a means to a quick fix -
"Only, say, the 1st 3 or 4 postings from a new member would need to be pre-checked if they had a "trusty" system as I suggested in my 12:26 posting. If they can't do that then their business model needs a rethink."
Do you really think people won't get round that? Dolt.
"If there was no site to show theses video clips
there would be no point in these Muppets filming them."
And if youtube went away... Another site would appear just as quickly - indeed, there are lots of video hosting sites out there already, it's just youtube is probably the most recognisable by BBC reading technoweenies.
One or two clued in people have noted that if Police time is to be spent on this, then perhaps it should be on the perpetrators of the assault, not on "policing" the internet, pissing into the wind, and telling the tides to recede. At least the perpetrators are providing evidence against themselves, and therefore making the job of the police a bit easier.
I could probably ramble on about this nonsense all night, but I shan't. I'll leave it at "Hands off my internet!"
The BBC Have Your Say is apparently populated by fuckwits who have no idea how the internet works. It's almost as bad as the Grauniad for people talking about things they know nothing about.
The topic which has caught my eye today, is the beating up of small children, by other small children, which is filmed and then posted on the interweb. Apparently this will be featured on Panorama, on Monday 30th July. Panorama used to be an interesting documentary to watch, but these days seems to be more of a mockumentary.
Anyway, back to HYS... Some of the knuckle-dragging inhabitants of Auntie's closet have come out with the following screamers:
"There are rules in broadcasting, and videos on the internet are just that."
Yes, and you must be this -> <- clever to use the internet... You have failed.
"This is another example of how the internet needs to be policed in exactly the same way as any other publishing media."
Err, but they're showing these clips on Panorama...
"I do not agree with censorship,but I feel that the IT managers could exercise some control over juvenile violence on these sites."
Perhaps they could use their mystical RegExp powers to stop kids fighting, end poverty, make it rain less in Edinburgh...
"Somebody, think of the children"
OK, the last one was me, but you get the idea.
And as a means to a quick fix -
"Only, say, the 1st 3 or 4 postings from a new member would need to be pre-checked if they had a "trusty" system as I suggested in my 12:26 posting. If they can't do that then their business model needs a rethink."
Do you really think people won't get round that? Dolt.
"If there was no site to show theses video clips
there would be no point in these Muppets filming them."
And if youtube went away... Another site would appear just as quickly - indeed, there are lots of video hosting sites out there already, it's just youtube is probably the most recognisable by BBC reading technoweenies.
One or two clued in people have noted that if Police time is to be spent on this, then perhaps it should be on the perpetrators of the assault, not on "policing" the internet, pissing into the wind, and telling the tides to recede. At least the perpetrators are providing evidence against themselves, and therefore making the job of the police a bit easier.
I could probably ramble on about this nonsense all night, but I shan't. I'll leave it at "Hands off my internet!"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Is nothing sacred?
According to The Register, 25% of Brits will answer the phone while on the toilet.
"Heeeeelllllllloooooooooooo" *plop*
Gaaaah.
It should be a shooting offence. It's bad enough people talking in the facilities at work... I am often tempted to heckle, or make really loud straining and groaning noises when I hear the guy in the next stall answering his phone. It's just not civilised. Stop it.
"Heeeeelllllllloooooooooooo" *plop*
Gaaaah.
It should be a shooting offence. It's bad enough people talking in the facilities at work... I am often tempted to heckle, or make really loud straining and groaning noises when I hear the guy in the next stall answering his phone. It's just not civilised. Stop it.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Belgians are idiots
Some technoweenie in a Belgian court has ruled that ISPs are responsible for the file sharing used by their customers... Out-law has some blurb about this, but the real chatter is on the NANOG list.
Yes, you've guessed it, someone (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, RIAA, some arsehole...) whined about file sharing. Without really understanding how the internet works, the Belgians decided something must be done, and that file sharing should be blocked across an ISP's network.
Now, how exactly does this work? The thing that makes file sharing illegal or legal is the people involved, not the files or the mechanism for sharing them... A blanket ban on file sharing will not solve the problem since people will find other ways to share files, whether they are legally entitled to or not.
Yes, you've guessed it, someone (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, RIAA, some arsehole...) whined about file sharing. Without really understanding how the internet works, the Belgians decided something must be done, and that file sharing should be blocked across an ISP's network.
Now, how exactly does this work? The thing that makes file sharing illegal or legal is the people involved, not the files or the mechanism for sharing them... A blanket ban on file sharing will not solve the problem since people will find other ways to share files, whether they are legally entitled to or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
