Huguenot

Perhaps PM me with the website and I can have a look at it? I may be able to recreate it for you with a more modern solution, leaving you with only very simple editing to do? I'm thinking Wordpress has some great free solutions, but would give you your own domain name, bespoke design and video stuff for only 5 quid a month? It's really very very simple to use! Have a look at some of these off-the-shelf themes: wordpress themes Don't be confused by Wordpress reputation for blogging, it's also used for many large businesses. List of features. Incidentally, I don't work for them or have any interest in Wordpress. I don't even use them as I tend to need slightly more teckie solutions.

Crikey, I think you might be years out of luck. Trellix died almost 7 years ago I think, and was sold on to multiple companies. They licensed the software liberally to no-hope organisations and those contracts eventually fell out of favour. I suspect that's what your problem is with 123 even if they don't know it. Even the licenses to hardware companies fell out of contract, such that if you built the site using a freebie package with an antiquated PC those will no longer work with any hosting company. In the nicest possible way, it's a bit like casting around for a company that will still look after your Compuserve homepage. You just maybe need to move on? There's plenty of sensible opensource packs out there, is it worth waving goodbye to your Austin Allegro and accept that nobody either has parts or a road that it's legal to run on? I seriously question whether modern browsers are even capable of reproducing it in the way you imagine?

"Your logic is the same used by China. If a newspaper article published in the UK criticising the Chinese government had been published in China then the author convicted of an offence and would be doing 20 years in jail. But the law is different in the UK - the article is considered legal - so instead they block it from being read." This is a ridiculous comparison. Pirate Bay is criminal activity, it's not censorship. It's UK law, not Chinese law. If you don't like copyright law or criminal facilitation law in the UK then make a protest and use your vote. Your association of copyright law with terrorism is ludicrous. If you prefer to be subject to Swedish law then go and live there. Totally up to you. This kind of rubbish is being spouted as a deliberate misdirection. You need to escalate to absurd proportions with claims that copyright law is censorship or some sort of terrorism law simply because the reality is so reasonable. You have to make stuff up to actually fabricate a problem with it. The rest of your post is simply about ease of execution which is a completely different issue. As previously established the difficulty of enforcing law does not mean that law should not be enforced.

There's that poorly informed jingoist streak again. That's why referendums are so stupid.

Here you go DaveR - it's a pretty good definition: "The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. " There's plenty of books you can buy on the subject, not the least by my anarcho-syndicalist ex-father-in-law Frank Harrison. The question of Scottish independence is predicated on the basis than Salmond believes he can stoke up enough national fervour about the differences in Scottish personality and culture that it deprives the British state from the legitimacy to govern. However, Salmond needs to create a state in order to govern, which means that he must see economic benefit and control from the withdrawal. Problematically, he has been clear that he wants to keep the pound, and as has been highlighted in Europe, fiscal unity requires political unity. Hence he can never have a legitimate Scottish state whilst he keeps the pound. So what's it really abou then. I can only assume that since his plans are contradictory and unworkable that he has some other motive - personal gain?

You're a pretty good case in point Silverfox. You can't tell the difference between the EEC and the Euro. Closer political union would only be required from those buying in to the fiscal compact. The point the Lord Owen makes about this is choice. The UK will only buy into a more integrated union if it seems right for the UK. That means that the rest of your views about being a fait accompli are simply scare stories. I also recognise the Times use of the perpetual and popular misdirection about European beauracrats. As I've pointed out, they are no different to the civil service, and no more or less democratic. Opposition to EU integration is worthwhile and reasonable, deliberate spreading of deceptions and misconceptions is not.

In the UK Pirate Bay would be tested against mens rea (intent) and the facilitation of crime (accessory). Copyright infringement is a criminal offence that attracts greater penalties than theft. Given that they have publically stated that their intention is to facilitate piracy they'd be found guilty on both counts. They can't be tried in the UK as they are subject to overseas jurisdiction. In a traditional context these traders would be banned access for their person, goods and services the the UK border without trial. That is all that has happened in this case. What people are trying to do is to elevate this into some greater issue about freedom as a way of wheedling their way into keeping this crime going. It's foolish, childish and irrelevant. Stopping criminals from trading in the UK is a perfectly reasonable activity for which the government have both a mandate and an obligation. That's it, that's all. Nobody is reading your post or stealing your life. It's no more a crisis of freedom than sticking a bicycle thief in prison.

The majority of Britons can't tell the difference between Europe, the EEC and the Euro and think that bothering to find out would somehow demean them. A European technocrat doesn't need to be Einstein to make better informed decisions. The electorate should use their vote to elect representatives who can make better and more informed decisions - they shouldn't be dictating the outcome. The fact that mistakes were made in the past is neither here nor there. Worse mistakes would be made if we were governed by referenda.

"Content is king as they say. An ISP is dead in the water unless they have access to content. So without net neutrality, these companies are only going to get stronger as they agree contracts involving unfair practices to their competitors." No, you don't understand what net neutrality is or how it works. As I've tirelessly pointed out the internet has limits upon how much data it can transfer at any given moment. The resolution of this problem lies in two distinct areas: traffic prioritisation and network expansion. In principle (not in actuality) the internet operates on a FIFO basis - first in is first out. Each file that needs to be sent (whether it's a web page or a video) is split into lots of litttle chunks of data that are sprayed out over the web like parcels in taxis across a road network. It's reassembled into a coherent file at the destination. So in FIFO when a server receives a 'parcel' of information it sticks it in a queue and the first one to arrive is the first one to go out. Think of this like the 'parcel' taxi arriving at a roundabout where all traffic is coming from different directions. If traffic is light the first one to arrive will be the first one through. This seems fair to everyone, yes? However, most of us are fairer than others, and because we're fair, if we were at a supermarket checkout with a full trolley and the bloke behind us just had a Mars bar, we'd let them go first: this is because it represents no significant delay to us, but a huge advantage to the Mars bar guy. So we can already see that FIFO doesn't chime with our immediate sense of 'fairness' - because context has a large influence on prioritisation. So FIFO isn't 'fair' according to most reasonable definitions. Secondly, we actually feel that not all 'traffic' is of equal value. For example, to return to the taxi analogy, if an ambulance came roaring up behind we would expect our taxi to pull over. Whilst an ambulance is an extreme example, there are many circumstances in which we priortise others (possibly through enlightened self interest), like old ladies or a mum with a pushchair crossing the road. So we don't think FIFO is always appropriate either. So FIFO isn't 'appropriate' according to most reasonable definitions. Finally, traffic in a modern internet age isn't light - it's very heavy and most of our servers, just like the roundabouts, are jammed. They have gridlock. Too much traffic is coming from too many directions and making simultaneous demands. We know that in this situation a free for all isn't appropriate. What we expect is a traffic policeman to turn up, effectively assess the situation, and choose the solution that most appropriately meets the needs of the maximum road users. So 'FIFO' isn't practical in most circumstances. 'Net neutrality' (or 'traffic neutrality') is the issue that the traffic policeman must consider when he makes his decisions. It is not, unless you're a obsessed cock, to do with stealing from you. The question over net neutrality is what guidelines we can put out about how to prioritise traffic in this situation - not whether the net is actually neutral. The issue is compounded in the modern era by the fact that a huge percentage (over 50%) of that traffic is made up of packets of video data. For every film that's downloaded it needs the equivalent of 40,000 taxis to take the parcels, compared with only 1 for your average web page. So we have a very serious question to ask about the whether one teenage boy or UDT wanking over one episode of Game of Thrones is a fair use of the internet compared with making 40,000 other people go without their web page. It doesn't take an idiot to see that's not very fair either. The other issue is one of payment. You may well ask if the wear and tear caused by your single taxi journey should have to pay the same amount for the upkeep of the web as the 40,000 taxis that UDT has demanded. Anyone who was 'fair' would recognise this as unfair. So there are many ways of resolving these situations. You could keep FIFO where it was logjammed, unfair and gave disporportionate benefits. Everyone with half a brain says no. OR you could change it, and hence the end of 'net neutrality'. BTW, net neutrality never has existed and doesn't now - what people are really campaigning for is visibility and consumer choice on the ways in which most ISPs prioritise their traffic. See, not so difficult?

Sweden's collaboration with criminals is nothing new. They have a history of such conevnient arrangements. If their own media industry extended beyond the odd TV mini-series they would feel very differently about it. UDT, there's also a long history of individuals making up their mind about a scenario than then twisting the facts to fit whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. I'm sure your experience as a Premiership player-manager, a Hi-Fi snob and an avid gardener will have exposed you to this challenge. However, it appears that despite founding Microsoft, Google and BitTorrent, your colleagues have poorly briefed you on Net Neutrality. Please take the time to research it more fully. Or do I take it that your resort to 'blah blah blah' comments means that you have researched it and discovered that you don't know what you're talking about?

cf. arguments passim about nation vs state. England is a state defined by geographical boundaries whose principle role is the exploitation of common resources. A nation is a tribe of people with common values, goals and aspirations typically fabricated by polititcians and built upon fictitious creation myths: be it Alfred the Great or Henry the Eight. I often find common cause with large groups of other people, those people are almost never defined by geographical boundaries - hence I feel no more strongly about differentiating between being English, British or European. It would be a bit simplistic. Having said that the British have achieved far more than the English. Under pressure it would make better sense to ally myself with a successful crowd than an ever diminishing empty vessel. When I see a politcian speaking about the state and claiming to find common cause with a nation, I know he's bright enough to understand the difference and dirty enough to exploit the parochial weakness of a people desperate to belong to something to define an identity. In short a mountebank. But then as the Republicans discovered with the working man in the US, turkeys will vote for Christmas is you give them a chance to be blindly and witlessly self righteous about it. 'This turkey farm is free to vote for Christmas if it wants, and we're more likely to do it if an intellectual points out the stupidity of it'.

That's because you invented the wheel, the printing press, penicillin, the lightbulb and electricity right? Oh no, that'll be elitists saying 'we shouldn't have progress because the people would prefer that lightning is the angry gods'. I have faith in people to be people, perfectly nice but the vast majority (including myeslf) don't do much at all. You leave 'the people' to their own devices and they'll be hanging witches, intellectuals and monkeys (for being spies). We rely heavily on 'elite' people more intelligent and more altruistic than us to try and find problems to pressing needs regarding food, shelter, sex and self-actualisation. We disparage 'elites' because they reveal our own inadequacies and yet supply our most critical needs. Without them we are nothing. We hate them because they expose our vulnerabilities. It's a symbiotic relationship that wsier people would cherish. Europe and integration is one of those foundation issues upon which our future propsperity depend. If you put petty triblalists in charge and THEN we're 'fooked'. It's about creating cross-border resource management that allow us to fragment and disperse without fear of disadvantage. Don't let the mob anywhere near it unless you want those decisions taken by small minded bullies who think that the people in the next road are stealing their jobs.

Woodrot, do you think it slightly personally embarssing that I used to value your contribution and now you come across like a tired little cretin making relentless valueless personal attacks? Is this what happens to silly little finance boys with 20k in the bank taking a work holiday? Yes, you will bore me out of the conversation, but it doesn't make you right, it'll just make you what you are already - an embittered nothing without anybody to tell you how super you are. Loz, get a grip. Pirate Bay is not Google. Pirate Bay was set up by a few fat city boys with the intent to stick it to the man. It doesn't have any objective but to destroy copyright through multiple relentless infractions. They have stated that fact themselves.

Only a dsiaster if you're of the somewhat naive persuasion that the people know the road to take. The 'people' left to their own devices would have very little were it not for the vital contribution of small groups of visionary individuals that gave them clean water, supermarkets, a roof over their heads and a job to go to every day. Let us hope that this 'grand vision' comes to pass - because despite your protestations, without it we would have a real 'foooking mess'.

"Proper footballing lesson here" What was the lesson? Surely in football the only 'lessons' that can't be learnt are those regarding behaviour, strategy or tactics? You could learn a lesson about concentration, or bad field placing, or preparation. You can't learn a lesson about skill when facing Brazil, unless the lesson that you learnt was about impoverishing 200 million people, restricting their access to education or employment such that all they had to do all day was play football well, hope to be spotted and signed up before you and your family died an early death from malnutrition or a curable disease? Great teams are always linked with economic failure. England will do well this tournament with no heroes and a failing economy ;-)

DJKQ "It's totally hypocritical of you to excuse your own teenage criminal behaviour whilst criticising other teenage criminals." You're being deliberately obtuse. I didn't excuse my behaviour, I made it absolutely clear that I know it was wrong. Hypocrisy is about intentional misrepresentation or deceit. I would be hypocritical if I didn't believe what I was saying. The Pirate Bay question is about scale, the bsands point was about incitement to commit a criminal offence. I did neither. Grow up. If you were a grown up, you'd know that most of us break the law everyday by accident. Without either intent or incitement we would all be likely excused under mens rea. We'd have to know what we're doing is wrong. So your pompous and biblical position regarding letting only those without sin to have a valid opinion is crap. As with Loz, you know it, I know it. Why are you wasting breath defending an indefensible point? The big question is why you're wheedling.

Spot on???? No, deliberate misdirection based on technicalities guv'nor. "I said copyright infringement is not theft in the eyes of the law. Which it's not. Stopping access to a site which cannot be shut down legally is censorship." Let's see what the law books say... "Copyright piracy - deliberate infringement of copyright when undertaken as part of a trade or business - is a criminal offence. This carries an unlimited fine and up to 10 years' imprisonment." - Source gov.uk. "Theft - Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: 7 years" - Source gov.uk So you're right - copyright infringement is not theft, it's BIGGER than that. "Both are search engines - are you actually arguing that point? I can find a torrent for a movie on either site. And, actually, Google is the better of the two for that task." This is what I mean by pathetic wheedling. You're actually trying to claim equality on a technicality. 'Yes your honour, he's a legitimate businessman because one of the watches on his arm was his poor dead mother's'. Anyone can wear a watch, if you're wearing 20 something else is afoot. Don't be an idiot. You don't actually believe what you're saying because you're not stupid. What you're doing is trying to wheedle them out of an infringement on a technicality that just won't wash. You're not at school and you're not Bill Clinton who "didn't inhale". You sound like a con artist, and so did he. You know it, I know it - the big question is why you're wheedling.

Marmite is good source of that - a sandwich a day!

Aha micropublishing in chapters. This is interesting stuff. Dickens all over again, we are come full circle.

Is this spam?

You want to apply for funding? Who from? Can't the government put in some hours for you instead? ;-)

Ask an American to say squirrel 5 times in a row.

I can't believe the wheedling bollocks justifications that grown adults use to wangle themselves out of admitting that they are facilitating crime. Pirate Bay is Google? No it's not. Stopping copyright theft is censorship? Not it's not (this one is particularly cretinous) Petty teenage shoplifting is the same as burning down and looting Peckham, Croydon and Tottenham? No it's not. Shutting down access to an overseas facilitator of copyright theft is the same as opening eveyone's mail? No it's not. Net neutrality is about big companies stealing from you? No it's not. I can't have an opinion because I did stupid things when I was a kid? Head of penis. Listen to yourselves. If you lot had the self respect to deal with the issues you would admit it too. Pathetic. Really pathetic. I shall now leave you to your bunch of arse because all of the issues have been adequately explored, and I'm sure people will make up their own mind. My final observation to you is that if you steal people's hard work from them, they simply won't make it. Then all you will be left with is youtube videos of educationally sub normal teenagers jumping off garage roofs. Small time occasional indulgence, sure, I do it myself. Major industrial scale theft? Brain of banana to justify this. You work it out, it's not difficult. Unless you're squirming and playing pathetic games to justify yourself.

I wasn't attempting to justify my background DJKQ, I was trying to contextualise it. (You do sound a bit weak when claiming that a bit of middle class teenage rebellion is on a par with turning high streets into a war zone) Most grown adults including myself would recognise that shoplifting is a crime, yet we have plenty of grown adults who believe that not only is pirating media NOT a crime, they actually think it's something to boast about. Do you get it now? BTW, the idea that because I did something 25 years ago means that I can't recognise it and criticise it in others is patently ridiculous. Where would be be if we couldn't learn from our own mistakes?

I think that with a major reaction you probably need to go hardcore pharmaceuticals, but for a few hints and tips from the tropics... Scratching is the worst thing about mozzie bites - it's very much an unconscious habit, so if you can force yourself not to do it, you'll stop doing it and the problems will subside a lot lot sooner. White tiger balm (the cool one) has been an absolute discovery - it makes the mozzie bite feel cold for about 20 minutes, just long enough to stop yourself fromm scratching. Anti-perspirant has aluminium in it, and this makes the swelling go down sooner, and so the itching subsides too! Use a roll-on.