Random News Stories

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My thought was "Poor guy can't catch a break. First his band sucks, and now he's crazy".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've seen a couple of stories about this, and my conclusion is "meth".

Possibly meth-induced psychosis?

[Doktor Howl]

I've seen a couple of stories about this, and my conclusion is "meth".

Possibly meth-induced psychosis?

Compare to EBS.

[hooplala]

I've seen a couple of stories about this, and my conclusion is "meth".

My conclusion is EVEN GOD HATES CREED.

This.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've seen a couple of stories about this, and my conclusion is "meth".

Possibly meth-induced psychosis?

Compare to EBS.

Sounds about right.

[President Television]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/christian-branding-agency-seeks-1-million-for-mcmass-project-to-put-mcdonalds-in-churches/

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/christian-branding-agency-seeks-1-million-for-mcmass-project-to-put-mcdonalds-in-churches/

THIS IS AMAZING. This is TOTALLY the future I had in mind!

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-woman-charged-with-encouraging-terrorism-on-twitter-9888761.html

[hooplala]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-woman-charged-with-encouraging-terrorism-on-twitter-9888761.html

No mention of what she actually wrote?

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-woman-charged-with-encouraging-terrorism-on-twitter-9888761.html

No mention of what she actually wrote?

Nope.

But she got arrested for talking smack on Twitter.

Oh, England.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-woman-charged-with-encouraging-terrorism-on-twitter-9888761.html

No mention of what she actually wrote?

Nope.

But she got arrested for talking smack on Twitter.

Oh, England.

Wow.

[Cain]

Encouraging terrorism...on Twitter, or encouraging terorrism on Twitter?

Because those are two very different things, and at least one of those I could actually get behind. 

By the way, this is from the 2006 Terrorism Act.  Our current government is discussing how it wants to strip citizenship from anyone who goes to fight in Syria - regardless of how this is illegal under international law, and ignores the fact quite a few people go to Syria, fight and leave because they are sickened by what they see.  Essentially, they want to criminalise everyone taking part in the fighting (while we nevertheless support militarily and with intelligence many of the groups taking part in the fighting) rather than keep open the possibility that persecuting people might encourage them to throw their lot in with ISIS completely and create a whole class of British speaking jihadis abroad and shut us off from any useful intelligence.

Oh, and they want to put what little is left of the internet that is not already under surveillance under surveillance.  Because this one guy mentioned to another guy on Facebook he wanted to kill some squaddies and then went and chopped a soldier's head off with a machete and despite the government having that guy under surveillance for almost 4 years they didn't actually bother to request Facebook pass on any details about this guy or his communications with known terrorist figures, which means Facebook and, to a lesser extent, the internet, are pro-terrorism.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Oh, and they want to put what little is left of the internet that is not already under surveillance under surveillance.  Because this one guy mentioned to another guy on Facebook he wanted to kill some squaddies and then went and chopped a soldier's head off with a machete and despite the government having that guy under surveillance for almost 4 years they didn't actually bother to request Facebook pass on any details about this guy or his communications with known terrorist figures, which means Facebook and, to a lesser extent, the internet, are pro-terrorism.

It's this fact and others like it that have me convinced the bad guys really are too dumb to win. When it comes to the internet, they really do seem to behave like people who have never even seen the internet, let alone figured out how it works.

[Reginald Ret]

Oh, and they want to put what little is left of the internet that is not already under surveillance under surveillance.  Because this one guy mentioned to another guy on Facebook he wanted to kill some squaddies and then went and chopped a soldier's head off with a machete and despite the government having that guy under surveillance for almost 4 years they didn't actually bother to request Facebook pass on any details about this guy or his communications with known terrorist figures, which means Facebook and, to a lesser extent, the internet, are pro-terrorism.

It's this fact and others like it that have me convinced the bad guys really are too dumb to win. When it comes to the internet, they really do seem to behave like people who have never even seen the internet, let alone figured out how it works.

Which side is the bad guys again?
Doesn't matter, both sides are too dumb to win. They both seem to be actively trying to lose.

[Cain]

They're getting bad advice.

The more GCHQ has to control the internet, the bigger a budget it can demand.  GCHQ also advises the UK government on its internet policy.  There is...something of a conflict of interest there.

Also, the more the government blames Facebook, the less it has to blame its own intelligence officers.  Which, given that the intelligence services can access vast amounts of data now and Members of Parliament have no more protections than the rest of the public (Blair canned the "Wilson Rule")...well, it could end up being bad.