Random Thoughts II

[Spoon1]

Originally Posted by CCS

Do you wear a surgeon's mask in the bathroom so that piss germs don't rise up in the piss steam and get up your nose?

Sif I'm that OCD.

Now I must be off, I need to check the door is locked.

[CCS]

What if you're walking away from the door and you're not sure if you locked the door or turned it the wrong way and now it's unlocked? You'd better go back and check it again.

[Hazmat]

Just got home from the hospital.
Wife is in for the next 48 hours on IV antibiotics for an infection. On her birthday.
Maybe this should be in the GMG thread.

[Lightspeed]

Rough deal.

[Ashley]

She'll be right hazmat. Just keep those dodgy otago registrars out!

[Lightspeed]

On a lighter note, after all these years, I have finally found a way to motivate myself to get into work on time ( in lieu of an employer who actually cares ) - beating a nemesis to a favoured car park in the morning.

[Helious]

haha, years ago that was how I got to work nice and early I always wanted to grab the carpark right outside the exit. I was too pro.

[Baal]

Hmm I thought it was just me .. I always used to try to beat this beyatch in James Smith's to the lowest corner carpark (bigger and you only have a car on one side of you so less chance of someone bashing the sides of your car etc).

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by zeekiorage

Judge restricts online reporting of case

So apparently the judge teaches Law and Information Technology and has written books about law and Internet but still thinks that banning online media while allowing TV and print media is possible.

Saw that - absolutely disgusting decision. From reading the article it appears that he was concerned that the public might become informed.

[Lightspeed]

I can't stand jigsaw puzzles and at work we often have one in the lounge that gradually gets assembled. To me they're an act in futility.

However I have found a side of jigsaws that I can enjoy. And that is finding pieces that look like they should fit, but don't quite and jamming them ( not so much that I'd damage the pieces ) in place, thus causing disruption to the other jigsaw assemblers.

It's extra satisfying to find a piece that mostly fits and looks like it would fit, but doesn't quite match, so that it'd be hard to spot. It's not so fun to accidentally put a correct piece in place.

[StN]

Tomorrow you will get to work, and there will be a wrong piece in the right carpark.

[cEvin]

Originally Posted by CCS

Do you wear a surgeon's mask in the bathroom so that piss germs don't rise up in the piss steam and get up your nose?

not a bad idea

[CCS]

You should wear gloves the whole time and you wouldn't have to worry about waiting for someone to open the door.

[Gentl e]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Saw that - absolutely disgusting decision. From reading the article it appears that he was concerned that the public might become informed.

Lol, too funny! you should do a little background checking before you activate your commie crusader mode.

[CCS]

GENTLE KNOES MOR ABOUT TH MEDIA THAN U!!!!

[Gentl e]

Crediblity karma - thx CCS

[CCS]

TELL US HOW IT RELLY IS GENTL!

[Gentl e]

Walk e slow e catch e monk e

[Jonas Undrawing]

lol. a virus has deleted all files from my ntfs partitions. That's some funny shit.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Gentl e

Lol, too funny! you should do a little background checking before you activate your commie crusader mode.

I was thinking the same thing, as is probably every person who saw the name of the judge in the case.

[chiquelet]

I just read that Nastia Luikin is considered "tall" for a gymnast...she's 160cm tall. I should have become a gymnast.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by fidgit

fun fact: An '8' in front of your produce's plu code means its GE. A '9' means its organic. The More You Know! -rainbow-

My 4-pack of V is organic??!? 0_o

[p01s0n]

He said 'produce' like greens and carrots and fruits and shit.

Gosh, learn to read, baldy.

[Lightspeed]

Personalised plate idea:
http://www.plates.co.nz/search/?legend=2G1C

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Ab

I was thinking the same thing, as is probably every person who saw the name of the judge in the case.

I'm sure VeNoMoUs remembers him.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Gentl e

Lol, too funny! you should do a little background checking before you activate your commie crusader mode.

So, how then do you manage to read anything other than what I said into:

Originally Posted by Judge David Harvey

Judge David Harvey said online media could not use the names, or publish images of the accused, to prevent the public searching for the information when the case comes to trial.

He said he was "concerned about someone Googling someone's name and being able to access it later".

Now, if he had given name suppression until the trial to give a better chance of a fair trial I wouldn't have a problem. The problem comes down to the fact that he limited the publication of names to print and TV. This undermines the ability of those who do not use either of those two methods to get the needed information to engage in their community.

This is completely and totally unacceptable.

[Cyberbob]

What about digital/online copies of the newspaper/publications?
Are blogs news media?
or forums? Can i post them here?

[Cyberbob]

I can see international webpages posting their names/images all over the place just to spite this ruling.

http://www.popehat.com/ has already vowed to post them asap.
Chances are it'll be on Fark etc at some stage soon too

[Lightspeed]

That guy's post is irony++.

[Furry Crew]

we can name them here right cause we're not a "news" website

[Gentl e]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

So, how then do you manage to read anything other than what I said into:

Now, if he had given name suppression until the trial to give a better chance of a fair trial I wouldn't have a problem. The problem comes down to the fact that he limited the publication of names to print and TV. This undermines the ability of those who do not use either of those two methods to get the needed information to engage in their community.

This is completely and totally unacceptable.

Urr, the whole reason for the ruling is to protect those that have not been found guilty - yet.

If this undermines your ability (which just shows your selfishness) to get the news, then well, you're shit out of luck.

I'm afraid something much bigger than just your news medium selection is at play here.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Gentl e

Urr, the whole reason for the ruling is to protect those that have not been found guilty - yet.

This is my understanding too. Although I'm not sure how effective it'll be. Still, you gotta try these things out.

[Saladin]

Bruce at aardvark explains the intent as

It's important to remember that both the victim and the accused are members of the FaceBook generation. They will have many friends and family who have their own space on the web and if something is published on those pages which could be seen as prejudicial to the crown or defendant's case then a mistrial may be declared.

So, if I understand this correctly, the intent behind the order is not to prevent people finding out the names of the accused, but to stop people posting details about the persons and the crime? Like putting "yeah I know Mr A., he a real hard cunt au and he hated that kid!" on your facebook page or something?

But then that guy could still post the same thing as long as he didn't actually name either of the accused, and as long as he names the victim it's still googleable to anyone that wants to find it, so it doesn't all quite make sense to me yet.

[Havs]

Originally Posted by Gentl e

Urr, the whole reason for the ruling is to protect those that have not been found guilty - yet.

If this undermines your ability (which just shows your selfishness) to get the news, then well, you're shit out of luck.

I'm afraid something much bigger than just your news medium selection is at play here.

I must be missing something REALLY obvious here ...

How is cencoring JUST the internet "protecting" anyone?

Update: "published on those pages which could be seen as prejudicial to the crown or defendant's case then a mistrial may be declared. "

How on earth is this different to someone SAYING the same thing.

I guess you could consider the internet far wider reaching than a 3 minute News broadcast.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Gentl e

Urr, the whole reason for the ruling is to protect those that have not been found guilty - yet.

Then he bans it from all media and not just the online news portals.

Originally Posted by Saladin

But then that guy could still post the same thing as long as he didn't actually name either of the accused, and as long as he names the victim it's still googleable to anyone that wants to find it, so it doesn't all quite make sense to me yet.

And, as it's all about to be published in the print and on TV will be completely negate that attempt at censorship anyway.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Saladin

Bruce at aardvark explains the intent as



So, if I understand this correctly, the intent behind the order is not to prevent people finding out the names of the accused, but to stop people posting details about the persons and the crime? Like putting "yeah I know Mr A., he a real hard cunt au and he hated that kid!" on your facebook page or something?

But then that guy could still post the same thing as long as he didn't actually name either of the accused, and as long as he names the victim it's still googleable to anyone that wants to find it, so it doesn't all quite make sense to me yet.

Well, that would be the intent, if it was some sort of total interwebs ban, but it's only a ban for online news sites.. so.. fuck knows.

[Gentl e]

The interweb is completely changable - from the very first record that went online, someone, somewhere is able to change that record. Generally news sources are considered a pretty accurate permanent record of events that, by and large are irreversable. On top of that we have standards, structure and accountablity in the traditional mediums, online does not.

It's better to think of this ruling as a starting point and not absolutely critical to the case itself. IMHO, the Judge has used a fairly straight forward situation to highlight, or initiate debate in another area.

[Saladin]

Originally Posted by Cyberbob

Well, that would be the intent, if it was some sort of total interwebs ban, but it's only a ban for online news sites.. so.. fuck knows.

Except the story on stuff explicitly mentions blogs not being able to post the names, and they are news sites.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

Then he bans it from all media and not just the online news portals.

I think the guy is testing out the effectiveness. The first time he does it, people are all up-ons. The 2nd time, there's mention of it. The 3rd time...

IANAL. I just wanted to say that.

[zeekiorage]

Well it seems the names have been already posted online.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...0529128&pnum=0

Chances are the online ban has done the exact opposite and few days from now if you search Google with "murder of Weymouth 14-year-old John Hapeta" you will find many overseas pages with the name of the accused persons.