Huguenot

"She hasn't made any constructive comments with regards to web neutrality" Not like your 'blah blah blah' incisive observation then?

I'd like to formally invite Maxxi to join the Ryan Clearly thread. I don't recall him pissing me off, but then there are limits to everything. Any conclusions he'd like to draw regarding Frank Zimmerman, a delusional old man feeding his fantasies online, and UDT would be entirely incidental. In the meantime Frank UDT, I'm sure you have more important Premiership football teams to player-manage, Hifis to purify and gardens to be expert in. Amongst other delusions pastimes.

I think IDS was dancing down the rather convenient political fence between absolute and relative poverty. The median income calculation is one of 'relative poverty' which is defined as someone disadvantaged in comparison with their peers. Your own and the IDS definition is scrambling around 'absolute' poverty defined by an inability to deliver basic human needs (although I'm not sure holidays count). IDS is scoring points by deliberately fudging the distinction to his own advantage whilst playing to right-wing absolutism. Having said that, I find it disagreeable that 'unemployed' is given parity with dysfunctional or drug dependent. There's are 3 million unemployed in the UK, but only a tiny fraction this accounts for the other 'sins'. I also think that bundling 'absent' into this is a scarcely veiled dig on behalf of traditional families and Victorian paternalism. Ugly.

Carroll's effectiveness would be calculated as a percentage of (opportunities converted / opportunities received). By any definition the amount of crosses he recceives would be a measure of the effectiveness of the winger? Just saying, like.

Quite happy to forward the 'secret' message to you UDT, it seems I was copied by an errant finger on 'Reply via Private Message'. Perhaps you'll then retract this, along with your other silly comments? I have no interest in 'winning' unlike some correspondents, only that our dear readers should be able to generate an opinion through accurate and informed insight regarding the issues we were addressing. In this particular subject, I also feel morally bound to defend hard working and generous colleagues who work hard to create a great www environment, only for spiteful little twits with a chip on should to slander, smear and abuse them. As you do me. Your abuse of their efforts is injury enough, without recourse to insult by claiming they're greedy corporate thieves. Doesn't it ever occur to you in your selfish little universe that you only have the facility to hack your way around the web because of the hard work of the people you so malign?

When the old Huguenot went to visit his Uncle Sergei he let me log on to look after his window cleaning company, and it never seemed sensible to change it. Probably should though.

hahaha.

Fun with cats...

He claimed that I defended Comcast - I didn't. That was a lie. He claims that I'm telling lies about net neutrality to defend big business and my own pockets. I'm not, that's a lie. In fact most of what he says is complete bullshit. I wasn't ridiculing autism. I think UDT is autistic. And witless. In hindsight it may well be that other sufferers of autism feel undermined by the association. Have a great day - and keep sending secret messages to each other abusing me and claiming you're 'winning', it's really grown up. ;-) Is that why you accuse other people of 'ganging up' on people - because that's what you do to people behind their back? I'm proud to say I've never stooped to such depths, but hey, if you think that gives you the moral high ground you go girl!

http://loopytactics.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ali-dia.jpg

I didn't defend them. Can you get your witless autistic head around this direct quote: "the Comcast decision (several years ago) to throttle BitTorrent was widely regarded by the professional community (myself included) to be arbitrary and poorly conceived"

A few posters who I met through the forum first rather than in the real world have commented that I'm much nicer in the real world, but that my debating style is very similar regardless of on or off line (although you can't hear the chuckle online). I just spend the majority of my time on here debating stuff, which I don't do quite as much in real life.

http://www.v3.co.uk/IMG/282/182282/ryan-cleary-370x229.jpg?1309260149

Gosh, that's a revelation! Your comment about sterile bedding plants made me look it up, and it's true! The annuals you buy from garden centres are mostly not annuals at all, but sterile flowers grown in laboratories that die in autumn never to regrow. The pollen isn't viable. That's how the garden centres keep you coming. Stick two fingers up at the garden center and get yourself some proper flowers!

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01184/ugly8_1184856a.jpg

... looks a bit like how I imagine woodrot looks. http://www.v3.co.uk/IMG/282/182282/ryan-cleary-370x229.jpg?1309260149 and not at all how I imagine UDT to look... http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/6/11/1339422423932/Frank-Zimmerman-who-sent--008.jpg

As with most conspiracy theorists, you present one sided opinion pieces without competent debate or informed criticism as a statement of 'fact'. As Lehrer observed at the end, it was 'thank you for your point of view'. For your own insight, the Comcast decision (several years ago) to throttle BitTorrent was widely regarded by the professional community (myself included) to be arbitrary and poorly conceived. For people who want to know what actually happened (not including UDT who wants to reinforce his alien lizard theory) Comcast unilaterally ended their throttling despite the FCC ruling that they were entitled to impose it so long as the public were aware of it. I should also add, because you probably don't know, that the BitTorrent throttling only applied to uploads, not to downloads. This means that the conviction of the lobbyist that this was to force people to watch paid for television was incorrect. Comcast still allowed people to watch free BitTorrents, they just couldn't upload them because it was breaking the system. UDT, the reason you and the lobbyist don't refer to it is because you are poorly informed, and have to fabricate an issue in order to criticise things you don't understand. *sighs* Most of the critics observations were based on principle and theory. It was about energising people over 'issues' not practical reality. As Lehrer commented 'Your job is to get people really upset over this?... "Yes"' The critic was not a technical practitioner, he was a tub thumper for 'Free Press'. He didn't say that throttling BitTorrent (a video sharing system by which 99% of content is copyright theft) WAS censorship. He merely reflected that the same system could be used for censorship. This argument is no more plausible than Loz saying that putting burglars in jail COULD mean that we're living in Stalinist Russia. Stupid. His argument regarding Comcast was 'they make loads of money' NOT anything to do with technical realities of the internet world. Nothing he spoke about had anything to do with the reality of the WWW, it was simply a US style rant against big corporates making money. This is tired and ill informed. UDT, you WANT to make net neutrality about big corporates making money. It isn't. Net neutrality is about making the web fair and equable for all in the face of big corporates like Google, and greedy young boys stealing web functionality for their own nefarious purposes. Carry on left hand clicking UDT, but stop pretending you're in the right.

Yes, because copy and paste is the 'new' opinion.

What are you two talking about this time? I don't want any individual to pay more for their internet services, instead I want the distribution and access to this limited resource to be fair and equable for all. Since 'net neutrality' in terms of 'first in first out' is not fair or equable, then a new approach needs to be found. 'Neutral' is like a government deregulating banks and sitting back to let them destroy our economies. 'Neutral' is like Switzerland, facilitating the holocaust and benefitting from stolen Nazi gold whilst claiming to be sitting on the fence. We don't do 'neutrality' we do 'fair and reasonable'. 'Net neutrality' in its current form is exploited by a tiny minority of jackass wannabee video file exchangers, hackers and copyright thieves to handicap and downgrade access for the vast law abiding majority. The internet should not be neutral, it should be fair and equable - delivering proportionate universal access for legal enterprise. UDT is reduced to hapless insults and downright lies simply because heavy duty file sharers, himself and others like him are currently the ones exploiting the rest of us. WTF is the Murdoch thing about and what is the relevance?

Bizarre logic to comments or recommendations like this one from bsand to do with online concealment. Do people also boast about the use of Rohypnol to avoid being caught out as rapists? There is an irony in the fact the projects like TOR were created to allow freedom of expression, and that some sad bastards will glorify in using them to facilitate freedom of theft and online abuse. Like libel laws, there are also laws against burglary, racketeering, drug smuggling - for all of which criminals may employ various methods to avoid being identified or caught. That doesn't mean these laws aren't sound. These internet tools used to disguise yourself, like fake passports and stolen identities, are not commonly required nor sought out by the average lawabiding guy on the street. If you want to pursue technologies to hide your identity in order to commit libel and abuse online, then go ahead and do it. But don't for one moment think these people are heroes. They're just sad losers. Most kids get over pretending to be a ninja or the Hooded Claw at the age of 10. There's something pitifully pathetic about people who are still doing it in the 20s, 30s or beyond.

I love the recourse to Sky News, silverfox - the UK equivalent to Fox Channel. Murdoch doesn't believe in editorial impartiality in the US, and he doesn't believe in it here. He admitted in the Leveson enquiry that he threatened both the Tories and Labour over Europe policies, and stated it was one of two isolated areas in which he influenced his media's editorial content. It is a matter of shame that the world's media is so untrustworthy on the issue.

"The Pirate Bay maybe/maybe not considered criminal under UK law, but UK law does not apply in this case. So it's not 'criminal activity' any more that the UK-written article about China is." You are quite incorrect. UK law applies to the ISPs who - in knowingly providing access to Pirate Bay as an organisation found guilty of incitement and/or presuasion of criminal behaviour - make themselves an accessory to the crime. If you aren't sufficiently well informed about UK law, I can direct you to the High Court? ;-) On the subject of Swedish law, you'll find that they have already found the four site owners of copyright infringement, but are struggling with the necessary law to use this ruling to shut down the site. So all involved governments have tried them according to local law, and they have been found guilty. The insistence that this is the beginning of massive censorship is childish and ridiculous. As I have pointed before, jailing thieves is not the 'beginning of everyone being jailed'. It is foolish to make such over the top claims. Regardless of that, I notice that the government is moving to reduce anonymity online amongst those found peddling unjustified and libellous online statements, and consequently protect the social media sites like the EDf itself. Is this the end of free speech?

What's the monster lurking in the abyssal depths EP?

I sometimes wonder if you can read Silverfox. Read what Peston says again - he says it is most likely that markets would respond positively. The rest of his note was about an unlikely alternative outcome. Anyway, the fact that you refuse to see a distinction between reckless government borrowing and foolish banking activites is neither here nor there. Whilst the Spanish government is administering the bailout, it is not a Spanish government bailout. The fact is that you can only make a bailout conditional upon non-reckless government behaviour (i.e. government spending) if it is the government that has been reckless. It would be like a bank offering you a loan on condition that you stop speaking informed common sense - since you never have done and have no intention of doing so, it would be pointless. Conditions on the Spanish government would be equally pointless. All the government austerity strategies are already in place, are sustained, and have been more dutifully applied than in most of the Eurozone, including Germany. It isn't suprising that not everyone wants to label a country as being feckless just for being foreigners.

I too recommend Peter Bennison. Excellent chap.