
Includes intimidating flash mobs of a sort, a Gaijin who ogles totty wearing a Union Jack design top then goes with the flow, and lots of naked men in a bath. Something for everybody.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:24, Reply)

Edit: That last lady wasn't happy about getting smacked in the face by a great big swingy ball was she? There's no pleasing some folk.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:06, Reply)

I had more sympathy for the first roly poly falling in front of the on-coming hoard.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:34, Reply)

The first part made me nostalgic for this clip (can't find a clean version).
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:51, Reply)

HELLO?
NO, I'M ON /LINKS.
/LINKS.
NAH, IT'S SHIT.
THEY ALL KEEP GOING ON ABOUT THAT RAPIST ASSANGE.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:08, Reply)

enjoy the film oh thats right u cant im on ignore lol
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:09, Reply)

But I'm feeling that I should have a natural loathing.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:32, Reply)

One of the best things I've heard from the DS.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:53, Reply)

Such a great project. The QOTSA re-record of I Wanna Make it is travestial :(. No PJ, no Twiggy, what was the point?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:47, Reply)

feels like one of my proudest achievements...?
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:11, Reply)

it's just falling in a very cool style.
*and it is very cool*
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:52, Reply)

Quite funny watching the crew scamper after them.
Not convinced by that student at the end; I can't see how this will revolutionise flight seeing as it's more of a parachute. And we already have those.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:12, Reply)

Which is pretty useful stuff to know if you ever find you packed the climbing kit rather than the parachute
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:59, Reply)

ah ha! I was wondering how this could ever be useful, butyou have solved this quandry
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:07, Reply)

Which is understandable for a biologist, I suppose
I think it was a bit premature of them to be talking about the revolutionary aircraft designs that might come of it. it simply seemed to jump and glide slightly longer than normal by flattening itself out. It's undulations simply might be a way to stabilise itself, the way some people whirl their arms when jumping.
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 3:50, Reply)

I have no idea, really.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:24, Reply)

and one of your videos was on it. The one where you moved the backround out the way as the train approached. Cheeky cunts.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:49, Reply)

Do you film the shot on a locked off tripod, then add the camera wobble when you've done the effects?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:01, Reply)

I've dabbled a bit and hope to get better.
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:09, Reply)

I'm honoured. He was one of the first people on here I truly thought was amazing!
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 3:05, Reply)

You can't invent a more idiotic sport, let's make a bull angry and see what happens when we release him in the streets.
No gore but brutal
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:20, Reply)

and could watch them gore, maim and perform major smackdowns and knockouts on idiotic humans for hours.
Viva Bully!!!!!
EDIT: I've changed my sig to read Bullocks in appreciation of my new bovine heros!
EDIT EDIT: to paraphrase beetlejuice 'I've watched a hundred times and it just keeps getting funnier!'
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:39, Reply)

Nice when one managed to leap onto the presumed safety of that little roof.
Not so easy when it's a fair fight, is it! Numpty humans.
edit:that last bloke, in the pink, got quite a beating, the twat
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:39, Reply)

I liked the chap who got his foot tangled in the line too. Must have been worrying.
They get what they were all looking for by the looks of it. Why else would you tease a bull?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:00, Reply)

well I hope all the people featured in that being gored, trampled, or tossed about genuinely felt pain, fucking wankers
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:01, Reply)

Take that shitcunts.
(Real men would have sharpened the horns and strapped daggers to the hooves.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:45, Reply)

There's only one way to find out...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:03, Reply)

They have, however declared this to be OK and to continue as it is Catalan national heritage. I think the term is "go figure"
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:05, Reply)

The only upshot is it might do some extra damage to others with the addition of flames.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:13, Reply)

Christ, what warped spazzcake actually finds stuff like this entertaining or hilarious? It is completely beyond me
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:53, Reply)

What with it being awesome and everything
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:35, Reply)

This is so true and funny and pathetic at the same time--I need to share this with some virtual friends so they can tell me how to feel about it!
( , Fri 24 Aug 2012, 19:42, Reply)

Qui-Gon's meeting with the Jedi Council doesn't go as expected...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:16, Reply)

I do declare this to be the seal of Sir Ron.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:02, Reply)

www.b3ta.com/questions/footinmouthtwo/post1706383
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:30, Reply)

Not my finest hour.
Fortunately, I think that alcohol blunted things a bit. I mean, we work in the same department, and we've spoken since. Not best mates, but civil, and friendly.
Which is a relief.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:37, Reply)

I hope you don't scowl at this person :D
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:40, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:54, Reply)

If not, you should be. I'm really interesting.
In a scowly sort of way.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:58, Reply)

Just on my way into town, was going to shout over to say hello but was running late.
You also looked seriously pissed off at that bus stop as you walked by it.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:01, Reply)

If it was about 10 days ago, rather than three weeks, it was because I was on my way to London, for the second time that morning. I got as far as Stockport on the first attempt before realising I'd left something at home that I needed, so had to turn around and try again. I was pretty annoyed at that.
Other than that... well, it might just have been the sun in my eye.
You really should say hello, though. I've got no idea who you are, but you seem to see me all over the place.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:04, Reply)

I'll shout over next time though mate.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:10, Reply)

I feel like I've just been catching up on what I missed by reading back the typed up notes of this conversation. Weird.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:23, Reply)

It makes me sing that last post as Slade going "Mamaa we're all Stasssiiii nowww" Then of course it suggests I go find some Youtube video of Slade singing it. I assume it must just meant singing the original, but what do I find?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wq0UcIephw
"At the time in the UK Slade were as dead as Elvis and embarked on a visit to the DDR where they recorded this footage as well as ripping through the old Slade Classic 'Mama Weer All Crazee Now'."
Not so crazy after all.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:33, Reply)

to stop a Big Brother Law?
It's just giving them a list of people to start on when the law passes ;)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:06, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:35, Reply)

How do I delete my sig then? ;)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:58, Reply)

They need 150,000 viewers to save Celebrity Big Brother.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:28, Reply)

i dont do racist bollox, but i hope you all enjoy the film
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:45, Reply)

they both have a place, side by side in my heart for being ground breaking films. Romper stomper had possibly the longest fight scene id ever seen until the raid came along about 2 months ago
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 0:10, Reply)

"What occurred is not rape as most people understand it. And it's important to note that the two women involved did not initially claim it."
Well it's rape in Swedish law and probably UK too from the comments.
And if a woman doesn't report someone for rape straight away she looses the right to?
Maybe this is all a big old plot to get assange to the U.S.
However a conspiracy theory cannot exempt someone from investigation can it?
If they really wanted him there's enough CIA in the Americas to be able to grab him.
And why didn't they make an extradition request like they have with others wanted by the states?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:21, Reply)

If it's alright with you, I'll save myself a few minutes of reading, and skip straight to "George Galloway is a cunt".
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:27, Reply)

The more this goes on the more i can't help but think Assange is guilty of something, his behaviour seems very irrational, it's not like Sweden wouldn't give him a fair trial and his innocence would be denied.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:30, Reply)

If he's innocent, I can see why he'd feel paranoid and so may act irrationally as a result.
Don't think he's doing himself any favours, though.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:28, Reply)

...Instead of asking those nice Swedish girls, he wouldn't be in this mess.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:14, Reply)

Jo Swinson points it out squarely on the head:
"As a public figure, rather than obsessing on conspiracy theories he should be sending a very clear signal to any victim of sexual violence that sex without consent is always rape."
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:43, Reply)

Ridiculous and an ego on legs, he has no concept of responsibility, he shafted all the people he was elected to help.
My comment was regarding Galloway, obviously.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:58, Reply)

Sweden are.
Galloway's a bellend of the highest order but to be honest I agree with most of what he's saying. It stinks of a set-up, and this ISN'T rape as most people understand it. He bust a condom and in the heat of the moment, didn't tell her. Is that rape as most people understand it? A girl who fancied him took him to bed and shagged him, and then she awoke having sex with him later. Is that rape as most people understand it? Well technically in Sweden, yes, but over there they have some mental rape laws. You can be convicted of rape for "talking someone into" sex over there, as in putting emotional pressure on someone. In which case about 99% of men have been guilty of rape at one point.
Making the missus / girlfriend feel guilty because you've not had a shag for a couple of weeks? If she gives in and lets you jump on, you could be a rapist and face 4 years in Sweden.
So yeah, I think Assange should go and defend himself, but if Sweden want him so badly, let them promise they won't give him to the yanks. But that won't happen because Assange knows that the instant he sets foot on Swedish soil the Americans will put pressure on Sweden, the 'rape' case will be given a perfunctory hearing before being thrown out, and Assange will be whisked away to the Land Of The Free to answer to terrorism charges and a possible death sentence.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:12, Reply)

Assange has every right to be scared. America's not happy that their (really) dirty secrets have been aired. Just look at Bradley Manning. Over 800 days imprisoned without trial in solitary confinement. The legal maximum is a fraction of that.
The press is definitely not to be trusted on this one as they are on a frightening smear campaign. Assange does come across as an asshole but his intentions are good.
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-interview-20120118
This is a fairly good interview.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:24, Reply)

...not entirely though.
If we take the attitude that all sexual endeavours MUST be preceded by the verbal or written consent of both parties then pretty much everyone on the face of the planet and throughout history who's had sex is a rapist.
Waking up to a bloke shagging you who you were a willing participant in sexual contact with a few hours earlier? Grey area. Extremely grey.
If she protested and he continued, then it's rape. If she went along with it or just resigned herself to it, then it's not.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:32, Reply)

GREY AREA? Are you a fucking psychopath?
Suppose someone invites you to their house for a meal, and then a few hours later you're hungry again. Would it be acceptable to let yourself in and raid the pantry? Would it even be a grey area?
If you're in bed next to a sleeping person, in what world would it be even vaguely morally or legally permissible to start having sex with him or her, on the grounds that he or she was willing in the past?
Honestly, now: do you really think that it's a grey area?
And if she resigned herself to it - do you really think that that makes it OK? Suppose someone threatens you with a broken bottle unless you hand over your wallet. You resign yourself to the loss of the wallet, and go along with the demand in order to avoid getting injured. Have you been less robbed? I doubt it. Now suppose that someone confronts a woman with a broken bottle and demands sex. Again, she might decide to let him have sex with her because, all things considered, that'd be better than being glassed. Now, if the robbery was still robbery (and I'd contend that it was), doesn't this imply that this would still be rape? (Again, I'd contend that it would.) And if it's still rape, then it must be so in spite of the woman having resigned herself to it. Your claim amounts to the idea that it's impossible to be raped if resistance would be futile or counterproductive.
And that's idiotic.
I mean: I don't want to come across all righteous anger... but you really are a complete and utter moral failure if you honestly adhere to the claims you've just made.
EDIT: I'm clearly concentrating on the moral aspect of the claim. Legally, you're just flat out wrong.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:42, Reply)

never been accused of rape, never had a problem at all.
am I actually some sort of mass rapist?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:51, Reply)

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/13/the-bogus-julian-assange-rape-case-hurts-women.html
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:52, Reply)

...a partner has every right to disengage at any time and have their decision respected. That I think is the most important thing.
If she didn't want the act to continue but lay there and didn't do or say anything to imply that she wanted him to stop, how was he meant to know?
Can you honestly say you've gotten explicit verbal or written consent from a partner every time you've had sex or engaged in a sexual act?
Those things considered, grey area. If she wasn't willing and made it apparent through either action or verbalisation, then he's a rapist. No question.
Otherwise, grey area.
As for the food analogy, If i'd invited someone to my house and made them dinner and told them to make themselves at home, I'd have no problem with them getting a drink or getting something else to eat. As long as they didn't take the piss.
I'm off to pick up my fiance, who I'm pretty sure i've never raped. I'll ask her...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:56, Reply)

It doesn't warrant a response.
As for not giving an explicit indication that she wanted him to stop: well, explicit indications can't be the whole story (otherwise we're back to saying that women who keep quiet for the sake of avoiding something worse haven't actually been raped).
Look: I'm not completely familiar with Swedish rape law. But it doesn't seem to have stopped Swedish people having sex.
And the food analogy isn't as easily overturned as you suggest. At the outside, all your response shows is that it might be possible for a person to be OK with the idea of another having sex with her in her sleep. I'll concede that (though your claim here undermines your previous notion that consent has to be explicit). But the fact that it's possible doesn't mean that it's even vaguely legitimate to assume that there's this kind of ongoing consent; and there're big questions that remain. I mean: isn't it more reasonable to assume that, in situations of nothing explicit being said, a sleeping person is not a suitable sexual partner?
The opposite seems to amount to the idea that a man is entitled to sex with someone just on the grounds that he's had sex with her in the recent past. And that, just in case I've not been clear, is nuts.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:06, Reply)

...If she'd woken up and decided she liked it and carried on, it's not rape anymore. Merely someone being kinky. It's that I struggle with and, perhaps unwisely, labelled a 'grey area'.
And to be clear, I am not suggesting sexually assaulting passed out/unconcious/automatically assuming sleeping women are up for it is acceptable. It's clearly not.
Anyways, really have to go now...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:13, Reply)

... it's not rape anymore. Yes it is. Legally it is, and morally it is, precisely because one person started having sex with another without that other's even knowing about it, let alone going along with it.
How dumb do you have to be, or with what sense of entitlement, not to see that?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:23, Reply)

Let's all hand ourselves in.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:33, Reply)

Just for reference: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1
And as for the non-legal aspect of your claim: you seem to be sugggesting that it might be permissible to start having sex with someone in her sleep on the off-chance that she thinks that that's a good idea if and when she wakes up. If you genuinely do think that, you're utterly beneath contempt.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:18, Reply)

...maybe i'm not explaining myself correctly, maybe you're just seeking out things to critisize. You've certainly ignored things i've said and jumped to your own conclusions about others.
Your link is interesting. Especially 1 (2).
Since you're incapable of debating without resorting to personal insults and debasements, goodnight.
And in case you're not sure, i'm not in favour of or support any kind of rape.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:52, Reply)

who is asleep, surely they have no idea whether that person will be willing or not until it is too late?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:09, Reply)

the one form of behaviour that very seldom occurs in your scenario is someone turning the lights on, waking the partner up, somehow assessing if their partner is able to give informed consent, then asking for and receiving informed verbal consent (or written consent to have sex just to make sure there are no misunderstandings).
The english law has a sensible test of "reasonable expectation" which the jury can basically apply community norms about what is acceptable behaviour based on the circumstances, while the Swedish law doesn't and is in my opinion flawed in favour of the accuser.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:21, Reply)

Just how could you "wake up to" a man boning you (for want of a better word)?
Wouldn't you wake up while the man was still trying to... er... find his way in?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:11, Reply)

Oh god, no no no no. That's just wrong.
And legally, you can't consent to rape. So shagging the missus before she wakes up, getting a girl so drunk she passes out before you do her, or Bready chloroforming that 14 yr old boy in the Arndale centre----it's all rape.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:13, Reply)

He's not going to forget your cold, dead eyes staring down over your wobbling, greasy mantits as you pummel him with the whole two inches of your angry love truncheon.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:45, Reply)

She apparently woke up to find him having sex with her. That's not consensual. Therefore, on the face of it, it's rape. Quite how people might fail to understand that is a mystery.
As for the not informing about the burst: well, the law is the law. Whether or not that's rape "as most people understand it" is neither here nor there.
And your point about Sweden, rather than the women in question, pressing the charges also misses the target. It's a criminal case. It's not up to individuals to press charges: that's the role of the state. (Otherwise, there could be no charges for murder...) I realise that Sweden and the UK are different legal systems, but the analogy would be with criminal cases here, which are R v Bloggs, or in the US, which are The People v Bloggs.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:33, Reply)

...waking up to a surprise sexing without consent is rape.
However, lots of people engage in sex acts without explicit consent every day. Be it with a stranger or long term partner, yet it's not rape in the vast majority of cases.
Assumed consent is a dangerous thing, so I'm not willing to accept that.
If I woke up with a woman riding me, having had my drink spiked with Viagra, it's rape. However if I decide I like it and carry on, it's not. I think that's the concept that I consider 'grey'.
Galloway suggesting 'bad etiquette' was atrocious though.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:07, Reply)

BUT consent can be tacit, or implicit; and it's still consent. And when it's absent, it's absent.
You're fighting a straw man.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:27, Reply)

..is sex without consent, then all non explicitly consented sex is rape. Because proving tacitness in court tends to be hard.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:56, Reply)

I mean: you're right that it's sometimes hard to prove rape precisely when it comes down to questions about what counts as consent - but the idea of implicit or tacit consent isn't hard to grasp, and the law has no problem with it. And the fact that it might be hard to prove a rape doesn't mean that one hasn't taken place.
Note that any alleged perpetrator has a massive built-in advantage here, because he doesn't have to prove anything. It's the alleged victim who has to prove that she didn't consent. That works well for people who think it's OK to instigate sex with sleeping people, of course... but it does mean that the deck is stacked against the alleged victim from the start.
Try this from a different context: if the doctor tells me I need an injection, and my response is to roll up my sleeve and offer my arm, then it would be perfectly reasonable, ceteris paribus, to interpret that as consent. If your partner is awake, in control of her body, and wraps her legs around you while naked and in bed, then that might very well be the sort of thing that'd count as consent. It's not explicit, but it's a reasonable supposition in most cases.
Its not difficult.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:24, Reply)

...If she carried on with the act then, presumably, it means tacit consent.
If she told him to fuck off and he continued, then it's rape. As it was, in the eyes of the law, up until that point.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:56, Reply)

Only if someone makes an allegation of rape, presumably? Then the courts should get involved.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:33, Reply)

It'd still be rape, even without the allegation. It'd just be an unreported one.
I'm slightly concerned by the syntax of Megamoss' post: he makes it sound as though it's the waking up that constitutes rape. Mind you, given the bone-headedness of some of the things he's said in this thread, that wouldn't wholly surprise me if he does think that.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:39, Reply)

...that's your perception of what i've written, not my opinion or point.
As I said in another post, taking advantage of passed out/drugged girl is rape.
And none of it has been bone headed, just a different opinion to yours. If we go by what you've been saying, then anything other than explicit consent is rape, though you conveniently label it as a 'red herring' to avoid the lunancy of such a standard.
There are no strawmen here.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:41, Reply)

I've carried on having sex after the condom broke (admittedly when I was a daft teenager), and I've woke the missus up a few times with a bit of jiggery pokery. On one occasions she mumbled something like "Get off I'm knackered", and so I did. On the other occasions she was fine and we carried on.
Also a few months ago she came in pissed after a hen night and I awoke to find her straddling me, stinking of booze and fiddling with me bits. Fucking rapist that she is.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:32, Reply)

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/08/legal-myths-about-assange-extradition
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:46, Reply)

Seems to me that we have almost the opposite of the old cliché "just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
In this case it is "just because they may be out to get you, it doesn't mean you aren't guilty"
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:02, Reply)

I knew a few of those but not had the ability to back it up
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:17, Reply)

no one will believe its reasoned and referenced tone....
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:10, Reply)

If you haven't the patience to watch the 45mins (and judging by the most ill-informed comments here and elsewhere most people haven't the patience to even read the basics) skip to around the 25minute mark.
Totally exposes the thing as a fit-up, old style, it could be an episode of the Sweeney except the women didn't even make a charge, one of them refused to sign a statement, the cops released it to the press and never even looked for Assange, the woman they say had sex without a condom had him stay a further 4 nights with her etc etc.
the whole thing is farcical, if it weren't for the fact that Sweden has previously handed over its citizens for rendition and torture to the US and there is a secret Grand Jury sitting in Atlanta since 2010 waiting for Assange to try and execute him. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaUGB3sjbs
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:45, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:18, Reply)

In which case it'd be grammatically sound...I think.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:11, Reply)

I will point out that this "consipiricy theory" of a secret grand jury inditement against him has now been confirmed in two places: in the Stratfor emails, and now last week in Australian Intelligence cables obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Both credible sources.
His fears of facing life imprisonment or execution in the US if he goes to Sweden to contest a charge of "lesser rape" that carries 4 years if proven seem quite reasonable to me(this charge does not exist under English law, and is highly doubtful the police here would seek a conviction here under any charge as we have a additional test of "reasonable expectation of consent" that doesn't exist in the Swedish legislation).
In the last 12 years the US has shown a disregard for international law for people who have embarassed them far less than Assange. For example, the drone assassinations of foreign nationals in neutral countries without trial or permission that continues today. what makes you think they will follow due process now instead of bullying an ally like sweden into handing Assange over when they get the opportunity? Sweden has refused to release an unequivical statement to say they will not do this. They just say they will act under international obligations, but this could be interpretted as obligations to the US as easily as European convention. I don't know if he is going to be any safer should he get to ecuador, but this is his call.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:21, Reply)

But the focus here is an M.P being a bit hazy on what rape is.
Personally I think Assange was wrong to release the cables in the way that he did and if it's true they led to the Arab spring he has blood on his hands.
I'm all for those countries overthrowing dictators but could I make the call that led to 10's of thousands of people dying? That's a big one for someone with no democratic mandate.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:46, Reply)

I don't think he made the call if that's the case, he just let people know the call had been made.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:54, Reply)

How you can have a democracy if they don't tell you what they're doing? How do you make an informed vote if they lie to you and conceal huge amounts of what they're up to? The more transparency, the more the accountable the bastard politicians will be.
but if you think he should be punished for it, then I can see why you don't cut him slack on his sweden dodging ways and that's fair enough
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:46, Reply)

This is for two reasons. First, the execution bit (AFAIK) relates to the idea that he committed treason. That idea was briefly popular among a few right-wing idiots; but it's utterly nonsensical.
Second - and more important - Sweden (like the UK) is bound by the ECHR, and is legally precluded from extraditing a person to a country in which that extradition is for a charge that brings the death sentence.
As for Sweden being bullied: Ecuador is massively reliant on trade with the US for the sake of its economy. Sweden isn't. Which is the more likely to be leaned on?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:48, Reply)

been treated, I'm sure Assange is equally afraid of a similar fate. We always conveniently forget the US was using torture and illegal extradition and more importantly, detaining without trial. All very dangerous and completely un-democratic.
Added to this Stratfor which is another terrifying development :S
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:59, Reply)

Bradley Manning's case is importantly different from Assange's. Notably, being a member of the US armed forces, he would have had obligations to the US armed forces that Assange doesn't. This is not to say that Manning has been well treated - just that his story is only tangentially relevant here.
Assange might be afraid of all kinds of stuff. That doesn't mean his fear is warranted, or that it should make the blindest difference to the legal process.
And the fact that it's non-democratic bounces off me completely. I've been here long enough, and sounded off enough, for it to be pretty common knowledge that I have no love for democracy; but even if I did, it would make absolutely no difference to the legal or moral merits of the US' complaint against Assange.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:35, Reply)

Ecuador is massively reliant on an economic agreement with the United States, to the tune of almost a hundred thousand jobs I read somewhere. The United States would probably find it far easier in the long run to get their claws on him there than from Sweden.
Rafael Correa won't be in office forever. A far more US friendly President could get elected and simply hand him over, or even covertly co-operate with a US military operation to get Julian Assange.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:01, Reply)

On top of that he does know it's in his interest to have the rape charges cleared and I can imagine he will work towards this as mouch as he can outside of sweden.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:05, Reply)

well, he's chosen a bloody peculiar strategy.
* Note that he hasn't been charged because charge follows arrest.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:42, Reply)

and did he ever think about this in the first place?
If you seriously piss off governments around the world what did he honestly think wouldn't happen?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:03, Reply)

who are defending Assange in this way is that they are basically saying both that they think he has been framed and also that they think he is guilty.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:40, Reply)

1) Does assange have a justified fear of extradition and conviction in the US?
2)Does that fear justify the action he's taken in accepting asylum and thereby avoiding facing the rape trial, and is this a good strategy?
3)Is the US right to prosecute him for Wikileaks
4)Has sweden acted improperly in the way they have prosecuted the case so far?
5)Did what people believe assange might have done justify a rape conviction?
6)What do you think about the rape laws in England and sweden in general, and the issues of verbal consent and behaviour?
A lot of people are arguing at cross-purposes or making sweeping statements that have a lot of assumptions within them that they haven't justified
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:13, Reply)

Here's what they say...
jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/
Rape allegations are not for you, me, Galloway or anyone else to expound and judge upon. They are a matter for the courts. It's fucking bullshit to say 'this is not rape as you or I understand it' There is law, and there is due process. Assange tried in the magistrate's court and the hight court, and both ruled it rape. Tough shit Assange, and Galloway is a massive cunt for having a pathetically poor grasp of the law, then looking like a massive cunt by showing everyone he hasn't a clue.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:36, Reply)

Couldn't agree more, same as Herbs and co said yesterday.
*shameless name drop*
*no idea who 'they' are*
*should stop using '' as it's even annoying me now*
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:50, Reply)

it would be up to the crown prosecution service to determine if there was a reasonable chance of conviction. The UK and Sweden have different rape laws, with the Swedish law lacking the test for "reasonable expectation of consent".
Even in the Swedish case, these are the facts:
the Swedish Director of Prosecutions recommended that the case shouldnt proceed based on his appraisal of the evidence. This advice was ignored by the lead prosecutor.
The lead prosecutor is a political appointee, as prosecutors are in sweden
She has a platform as a crusader for anti-sexual violence
Her office leaked assange arrest warrant to the press on their blog two hours after it was given, violating swedish confidentiality in rape cases
She convinced both women who initially approached her office to try to force assange to have an STI test to change their accusation to rape
These are just the facts. there are other irregularties that are alleged, such as the accusers contacting the media asking for payment for stories
I'll let people make up their mind about how justified the prosecution against assange is, but to me it seems very weak
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:32, Reply)

Two women have accused him of sexual misconduct; so you fly to Sweden and resolve the misunderstanding, or more serious rape accusations.
Or you don't and flee like a coward. But where exactly? He hasn't worked out nowhere is left to go.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:58, Reply)

it's very easy to call someone a coward, but it were you that was facing a lifetime stretch in a shitty US federal prison for being a whistleblower, then maybe you'd try to avoid it as well instead of proving how manly you are.
Whether his fears are justified is another debate, but I think based on some recent evidence they are not totally baseless
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 2:50, Reply)

All the posturing and conspiracy theorising around Julian Assange has only served to confuse me. But in the last couple of days I've realised two things:
1) The things he's accused of are utterly, unequivocably monstrous, despite what hilarious morality vacuum George Galloway seems to think.
2) I have absolutely no idea whether he's guilty of them or not.
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 4:17, Reply)

A look at the video game scene in 1977, the tech and software and the elements of pop culture that inspired it.
It's very Merkin, but stick with it. There's some good stuff. Never knew that Coleco as in 'Colecovision' was the Connecticut Leather Company, originally a shoe manufacturer.
Here's 1978:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BkxoHBm_j0&feature=plcp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEPBLoSplaM&feature=plcp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q8_XIyE7gM&feature=plcp
and 1979:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQVjyFmwpiA&feature=plcp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbD4DhhX1R4&feature=plcp
www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Q4GacaoKA&feature=plcp
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:03, Reply)

are the personalities so they be.....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiLVr6utMGg&feature=player_embedded#t=656s
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:16, Reply)

Reminds me of the interviews with the "Infinite Detail" technology guys from a while back. I actually feel nauseous at their smug self-assuredness, and pleasure at their own jokes. I just can't help shaking the feeling that they're all really happy, which will not do.
e.g.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVB1ayT6Fdc#t=30m40s
Also, holy-butt-suck, his voice!
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:23, Reply)

For a start none of them were sentient in 1977. Secondly none of them has built a game, let alone a whole computer system. They qualify to mock the systems once they can create Pong from a pile of sand and igneous rocks.
Standing on the shoulders of giants and all they can say is 'Ha ha this giant has a bald spot'.
Edit: Once they get to the systems they know they're slightly more entertaing in a nostalgia kind of way.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:37, Reply)

Nobody should be able to mock anything unless they can construct it themselves to an equal or higher standard.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:14, Reply)

I haven't played road rash 2 in years. Defo going to dig it out.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:41, Reply)

How can she refuse this?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:55, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:41, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:19, Reply)

be sure to have someone video it, upload it to youtube, then share it here! ;)
thanks again, for the birthday wishes.
:D
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 23:00, Reply)

What drives people to do this ? anybody ? surely it cant just be boredom ?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:14, Reply)

I think a friend or family member should have intervened.
This dedication say's
I'm vulnerable
I'm awkward
I have bad taste in music
I have bad taste in shirts
I cant sing
I fucking love you i do.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:35, Reply)

the first time i saw this, i thought how sweet, but Bready has a point, what is his motivation for putting this on youtube?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:00, Reply)

...buuuuuuut I'm sure I'm not the only one not to get the whole HTML5 thing. I mean, why would I want to use a cobbled together piece of shite like javascript to write something meaningful? loosely typed? no true OO? urgh, no ta. It would be like writing Doom3 in Cobol.
Also, that website/game had just bumped all my fans on full power... html5 performance really does take the biscuit and there's *far* better solutions out there. And this is a medium power modern pc.
Sorry, rant over, the game is a very impressive tech demo though ;o)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:37, Reply)

I think the tech will improve over time though, and maybe better scripting solutions than js will surface.... maybe
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:46, Reply)

A chap I used to work with often told me I should learn LISP, said I'd find it very Zen. I think I know what he means now.
Javascript isn't meant to be object oriented, but it helps if you a) write in a semi object-oriented way and b) forget anything you ever knew about C++, Java, Python...
(Saying that, I'm stuck in hell today, debugging and extending some JS I wrote 6 months ago, it may as well have been written by a gibbon using just his left elbow)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:46, Reply)

...that may explain quite a lot
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:50, Reply)

For those exact reasons, lack of encapsulation means it's a maintenance clusterfuck. Write once, run away and try and forget it Many.
Such a shame browsers don't have a propah langwidge
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:14, Reply)

and because it's nice to do things well
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:16, Reply)

It doesn't make any real difference to your maintenance. Once you need to do anything complex in the closure, you're better of splitting it out into a proper function anyway.
JavaScript can be used well, of course it can; but it's a lot like C or C++: it takes a lot of discipline to use well. And the end result will still perform like a dog's breakfast.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:28, Reply)

They let you nest all kinds of code, callback and events, yet still get back out to a class based scope for sanity/maintainability.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:35, Reply)

(And sensibly, not doing crazily complicated stuff.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:38, Reply)

The trick to maintainability is picking the right way. Hindsight's always a bit of a bugger here...
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 22:23, Reply)

Not necessarily any single *right* way.
( , Wed 22 Aug 2012, 1:42, Reply)

But thought i was good. Now i'm ok and think i can be better. Closures, bind, call, collections, signals, they all wrap each other beautifully now, where before i was trying all kinds of things with classes, prototypes and basically creating an unmaintainable mess.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:33, Reply)

then it's playable by most people who can load it in a browser
the language might have flaws but the compensation is you can reach a wide audience.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:49, Reply)

but the tech is fundamentally flawed IMO - it's a step backwards not forwards. That's not to say it won't catch up, I'm sure it will (and this demo shows it's getting much better).
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:51, Reply)

All the things it can do could be done with Flash. They will not notice much difference.
For a developer, it makes coding easier / cheaper.
Any commercial website which goes for a 'html5 aesthetic' to look modern is likely to be the equivalent of a site ten years ago with a Flash splash page. Sites have evolved away from design-for-designs-sake, as it usually annoys people.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:40, Reply)

Shame it's not actually supported on everything. Not sure why it doesn't work on my PC, and really can't be bothered to work it out.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 20:29, Reply)

or is it an experimental thing which may be included in the future?
If Microsoft don't support it, then it is pretty useless in commercial web design (though I guess gamers are going to be more willing to be told to use a different browser).
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:03, Reply)

And it's not really part of HTML5 (although that's a term that's come to mean a lot more than just the actual HTML), it's a non-standard context you can request from a canvas element. But there is already a decent consensus about it... except from Microsoft.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:16, Reply)

really great thing about HTML5 is the specification on error handling, which should hopefully mean that stuff looks the same in all browsers, no matter how it is coded.
Most of the "HTML5 demos" are more just people enjoying pushing something to its limits.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:30, Reply)

OpenGL specifies how things must look. This sounds great, but in practice it isn't for anything high performance, because if the hardware doesn't do what you want, then you fall back on a software pipeline that's very slow compared to hardware.
So yes, you get the same result... but at a radically slower speed.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:46, Reply)

I can write a well featured application that can change remote data in real time and work on almost anyone's computer immediately.
Try doing the same with Java or C++.
It's not perfect, but it's getting better all the time, due to better engines and a constantly improving spec. Harmony addresses a number of OO grumbles, but I quite like being freed from the shackles of typing and full OO.
The browser is pretty much the OS now.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:07, Reply)

I don't want to be freed from strong typing. It's the path to madness! (It eliminates a whole class of things you can do in typed languages to protect yourself against unexpected things being passed to functions, etc.)
(Implicit typing I'm fine with, but I still like it strong.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:48, Reply)

That runs terribly on my pooter :( I'm on a 2008 iMac, 2.4ghz core duo and ATI Radeon HD 2400, oh and I'm using Firefox.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:04, Reply)

2.5GHz Core 2 Quad, nVidia GeForce GTX560, Firefox on Win7-64
REALLY needs analogue input (mouse) for steering, it's impossible to use digital controls (arrow keys) for corners that fast. You either understeer or oversteer, and you go far too quickly to get half-and-half by tapping it rapidly.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:24, Reply)

This HTML 5 game didn't run on my iPad either Steve. Thanks
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:21, Reply)

It can either be fast, or secure. But not both.
(The problem is down to initialization of GPU VRAM. Without it, it's insecure, with it, it's slow.)
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 21:40, Reply)

David
Sweet dreams x
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:21, Reply)

I love it, and if he is looking, more Spoilsbury toast boy?
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 16:33, Reply)

What with this and the Locust Toybox. Must watch this vid when I get home, I love his horrible horrible imagination :)
::EDIT:: Blimey his animation style's evolved...but it has been 5 years since that last one.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 17:20, Reply)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVvA_nErFcA
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 19:07, Reply)

A video I made for this song
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:18, Reply)

( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 15:36, Reply)

I did wonder why YT sometimes went weird when I was trying to type.
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 18:35, Reply)

Not for the squeamish....
( , Tue 21 Aug 2012, 14:31, Reply)
« Older links | Newer links »