>>17403

>In the case of the Buddhist temple, as far as I am aware they almost exclusively depend on donations and the monks in it are in no gainful employment of their own of any kind. So they need to accept money from those who engage in the daily struggle for their place in the world and have money to spare to support such a temple.

Buddhist monks in the Theravada tradition are actually forbidden from bartering, touching money, harvesting crops or slaughtering animals. Their monastery is owned by the lay community who chose to build it. They're allowed to ask for food, but they can only ask for a new begging bowl or robe if their old one is beyond repair. I believe the idea is to keep them honest - a monk who is totally reliant on the support of the lay community is probably less likely to act like a prick.

The real issue is that women are becoming more like men and men are becoming more like women.

In a couple of generations women seem to have lost the ability to cook and clean. A lot of them would struggle to do more than shove something in the oven or microwave.

The only times I've ever been threatened by violence on a night out is by women who can't handle their drink and think they're untouchable. Lasses these days are far worse and more vulgar than lads.

As for men? It's mentioned earlier in the thread that women are overly judgemental of one another but once men get going they can be worse than a bunch of old housewives. I also know plenty of lads who are completely and utterly whipped by their wives; they're the main breadwinners but still do the majority of the housework.

>>17410

Alright granddad, let's get you back into bed before you do yourself a mischief.

>>17407

Our stories are frighteningly similar.

One time I got an infection in one of my wisdom teeth and couldn't get any time off to go to the doctors, so I finally went in to A&E on a Saturday when my jaw was basically wired shut by the infection and got told if I'd waited much longer I would have kicked the bucket from septicaemia, which was nice. The next day (Sunday) I had to fly out to a client in Europe and on Monday morning the phoned the UK office to complain I was drunk (my jaw still wouldn't open so I was mumbling like a deranged fool no doubt).

My liver took so much abuse that my GP wanted to send me for a hepatitis test ("Your prostate is fine but I haven't seen a liver like this in years, do you share hypodermic needles or use any drugs beside alcohol?" being one of the best questions a doctor has asked me yet. (the fact I had to say "no Doctor" while I had the 2g of crystal I'd just picked up in my coat pocket was miserably ironic)).

Given another chance I don't know how much I'd be able to do differently. I always had a tendency to use uppers, and with uppers come the downers so that you can actually sleep (or at least pass out) when you get the chance.

I always had workaholic tendencies and I enjoyed my work, I think I should just have quit that job for something a bit less stressful a year or two earlier, got out when I was ahead sort of thing.

Luckily my health largely bounced back and other than treatment for bipolar depression the rest of my body (including my liver, amazingly) are all doing pretty well. Giving up all the drugs and the booze and taking up 12-15 hours a week of exercise instead is what's probably responsible for that, although paradoxically I would never have got to the position where I could pursue such a large amount of leisure time without putting in all that work in my twenties.

>>17409

>Buddhist monks in the Theravada tradition are actually forbidden from bartering, touching money, harvesting crops or slaughtering animals.

How convenient for them.

>>17376

So a fourth seemed appropriate?

>>17379
How do you get four? We have two on /pol/ and this one on /news/. If you add one and two together you get three, not four.

>>17380

Okay.

So a third seemed appropriate?

>>17378
The eyes to the right, two.
The nose to the left, one.

Sounds like we need to get this one to max-fax pretty sharpish.

>>17381
I never said the additional threads were appropriate.

Bet it was just a bit fat wood pigeon, all fluffed up because of the cold.

>>17307
You ain't fooling us with that old chestnut. It'll be the front page of the Mail for you tomorrow 'PUSHIN' HIS LUCK: CANAL ENTHUSIAST BLOCKING ASYLUM SEEKER DEPORTATIONS'.

Whack some lasers on it! I can't believe the Drone Troll hasn't thought of this yet. The real world effectiveness would likely be quite limited, but ire would be immense.

>>17349
That would just allow people to see exactly where the drone was in the sky.

>>17350
Now you tell me.

A dog walker from Leeds claims she had a 'completely bizarre' experience after she saw a couple smeared in bird blood having sex in the middle of a group of chanting women.

The woman, who has asked to remain anonymous, says she spotted the couple when she was walking her dog near Hawksworth Wood Trail, in Kirkstall, shortly after midday on Friday, January 11. West Yorkshire Police confirmed officers were called to 'a report of public indecency' in the woods and they have now 'stepped up patrols in the area'.

The dog walker said: "I let the dog off for a run and he went to the top of the wood, near a field where kids play and people walk. He disappeared and I heard what I thought was shouting so I went to get him, as he's a big softy, but I thought he had scared someone. It sounded like someone shouting in a different language, but then I saw a lady in her late 30s laid on a white plastic sheet."

She said she thought the woman 'was dead' at first, but when she went closer to try and find her dog, she saw a man. The man then used his finger to take blood from a dead bird and 'put it on the woman's face' before they had sex, she claimed.

She added: "I dragged the dog away and my friend and I walked away. Then, about 10 minutes later, I walked back that way and my friend said she saw at least five other woman clothed around them (the couple) and we realised they were chanting. We decided to go and ring the police as it seemed odd, because they knew people were there and just carried on. We checked back later, to see if they'd gone and they were dressed in tunics and walking away as if nothing happened and had the sheet folded over their arms. It was completely bizarre."

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/dog-walker-claims-saw-couple-15668383

>>17344

Where's Masonlad, he needs to explain this.

Also, everyone knows that the place you're supposed to go for weird outdoor sex in Leeds is Golden Acre Park. That's the real issue here.

>>17345
If it was masons, no birds allowed innit.

It's a grey parka?

>>17345

Sounds more like Wican sex magic to me.

>>17347
Better than Wigan sex magic. Trust me.

Websleuths are on their fifth thread about it, closing the first four after about 55 pages. They seem to be censoring anyone saying Jayme might have done it though. I don't know how a 13-year-old could be such a ninja at hiding if she did.

>>16137

They did make a song about her.

>>16139

The door was kicked in. She probably wouldn't kick the door in herself, to fake evidence, before scarpering. The police arrived four minutes after the 911 call.

There was a case where Joseph Edward Duncan III broke into a house, killed the mother, father and older brother, and made off with the two youngest kids.

Found alive and the press conference begins in half an hour.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWE0Ecnlqug

>>17335

The first video is one of my favourite things ever.

I'm not sure why, maybe it's because it would be derided now, or maybe it's because I was a little young to properly appreciate it, or the fact that at the end his grinning face pops up.

It just speaks of a simpler time.

>>17336
It makes me want to do a flashmob where everyone in a road stands up and shakes the hand of some random guy then walks down the street smiling and laughing beside him while upbeat music plays.

>>17335
I was looking on ebay for old election junk (Because of course I was, I'm a right saddo.) and this set of issues of The Economist is up. That headline in the bottom right: "Tories deserve to lose: Labour doesn't deserve to win." That fascinates me, it's one of those little things you dig up that goes against the flow. These instances of quiet unease and cynicism before 1997 fascinate me. There was another article I can never find - I'm sure it was in The Independent from about 1995 or 1996 - that basically said while Labour was polling great and certain to win, the party faithful were miserable because they had to explain some rather boring, incremental policies on the doorstep rather than gushing about the bigger ones that made them enthusiastic about Labour politics in the first place.
Obviously knowing the Conservatives were going to get their teeth kicked in for once was great, and that made up the overtone of the campaign. Even the grumpiest of old-Labour holdouts would've had to smile at the sight of them falling on election night, but that less-noticed undertone interests me more because it foreshadows the impending malaise. The "meh." election of 2001 and good old 35/55/2005. Heck, even the 1997 election had a very long campaign period for an election that was won before the campaign began.

>>17338

It's not a huge leap to expect that The Economist would be somewhat sympathetic to Major and The Independent circa 1996 would be underwhelmed by Blairism. From the current vantage point, the most striking fact is the disparity between the relative competence of Major and the drubbing he took in '97. Subsequent Tory leaders have rather changed his legacy.

There was undoubtedly a malaise with regards to New Labour after the millennium, but there was also a sense of inevitability. Why bother turning out to vote for Blair in 2001, when Hague couldn't win a meat raffle? Much of Cameron's tenure had the same basic dynamic, albeit without the initial rush of optimism.

I suspect that disenchantment is an inevitable product of remaining in office. Reality can never measure up to expectation. If you actually improve the country, you'll eventually hit the point of diminishing returns and be criticised for losing your touch. If you're a competent caretaker, you'll be criticised for doing fuck all. It's really hard to run a country and people will always hate you for trying, even if you're actually doing a decent job of it.

>>17339
As Tucker puts it, Brown was "hounded out by the fucking press" and is now thought of a lot more fondly then Blair.

>>17267
>Is everything you mention always well-paid?
Not him, but if they weren't people wouldn't be doing them instead of just getting a proper job.

>>17261
I have just consulted my 2005 edition of the Profanisaurus Rex

>twunt n. Useful, satisfying yet inoffensive combination of two very rude words which can safely be spoken in the primmest and properest of company.

I believe that settles the matter as to the terms validity, as to its correct usage, I must agree with my learned colleague that poster >>17250 has demonstrated qualities of both a twat and a cunt in this, and other messages we can reasonably conclude to be theirs, and therefore the description of twunt is appropriate in this instance.

>>17267

>Is everything you mention always well-paid?

How do you think the job market works? Do you reckon there's one specific sort of newspaper columnist/nationally published author that only gets 50p an hour?

You're accusing someone of making assumptions about Monroe's finances, while intimating that you think Monroe's finances are poor, which, unless you two are well acquainted, is also an assumption you're making.

So either explain why you think Monroe is poor (without assuming anything) or fuck the fuck off.

>>17270

Calling it now, poster IS Monroe and was recommended the site by ARE LAUIRE.

>>17271
Given that Taylor Swift posts on the other place it wouldn't be the strangest thing that's happened.

>>17215

Every major ISP already offers porn filtering. Either it's on by default, or you can choose to turn it on when you're setting up your WiFi router.

The mandatory age verification filtering that's about to come into force can't be turned off. You can't say "I'll have the filtering on the kids computers, but not on mine". You can't say "I'll have the filtering on until midnight, but after that it's daddy's private time". It's on all the time on every ISP. Either you hand over your credit card, trot down to your local shop for a government-approved Masturbation License or you'll have to twat about with VPNs.

What proportion of people definitely don't want any filtering ever? What proportion of people want some filtering, but only what they choose? What proportion say they want filtering, but secretly like to have a tug to Anal Acrobats when the wife is asleep? What proportion don't really watch porn, but don't like the idea of being told what they can and can't see? What proportion definitely want porn blocked 100% of the time, but aren't satisfied to just click the little box that says "please filter my porn" when they setup their broadband? Only the last of those groups stands to benefit from rigorously-enforced age verification filtering.

There are 205 ISPs in the UK. You could set up a puritanical broadband company that offers absolutely no porn under any circumstances with a remarkably modest investment. Nobody currently offers puritanical broadband, presumably because there's insufficient demand - if you want filtering, you can have it from any of the major ISPs.

Five ISPs control 95% of the UK market - BT (who own PlusNet and run the fixed-line service for EE), Sky, Virgin, TalkTalk and Vodafone. Of those big five, who would decide to deliberately alienate a large proportion of their customer base to appease a small minority?

>>17218
Technically they also don't serve pirated content but that didn't prevent the injunction machine from listing them.

>>17218

They're already engaged in a cat-and-mouse game with court-ordered blocking. The life expectancy of a torrent or streaming site is a matter of months, but they just get another domain name and IP address when they get blocked. Some ISPs implement those blocks quite stringently using DPI, which is a bit of a faff to circumvent. Others just do the blocking at the DNS level, which is basically free to implement but incredibly easy to circumvent by changing your DNS server. Coincidentally, the ISPs that make a real effort to block pirate content also sell subscription TV services.

I stand by my prediction that most ISPs will do the bare minimum necessary to comply with the law. AAISP will probably tell the government to go fuck themselves, possibly literally.

>>17222
I'm not aware of any ISP subject to court-mandated blocking that does filtering by DNS alone. In fact, I think that method was specifically addressed by the claimants as inadequate.

As for A&A, that will depend on whether they have the resources to just pay any fines that come their way, and whether Adrian Kennard fancies being publicly pilloried for it as Clive Feather was the first time this came up. (He finally gave up the fight when the press started referring to him as "Britain's child pornographer-in-chief".)

>>17223
I suppose the best way to go about it if their hand really is forced, is to make the "blocked" page a passive-aggressive one with instructions on how to obtain and use a VPN, and perhaps details of petitions to sign and donation details to the EFF, Open Rights Group etc.

>>17134

>studenty feminist types who think they've figured out the solution to every problem with the world.


The worst kind there is.

>>17131

>If you're referring to the study I'm thinking of

I was thinking about an arrogate of hundreds of studies over the last 50 years. Not all science has been perverted by political agendas just yet.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4hrHUo70nY

This thread has got really shitty in a real hurry and I sincerely regret my involvement.

>>17138
It's that insidious creep again.

>>17137
haha
they photoshopped her face so she looks sillier
haha
take that
r e a l i t y

>>17092

I see a lot of people like you fearing for what might happen, but the reality is we're already there.

If the government wants to track you, they already are, and they have been for decades. It's admittedly made easier by new technology, but if MI5 want to know where I'm spending my cash, they'll sharp find out. Your phone, your face, your fingerprints, it's all easy enough to track even by a private company, let alone the government.

We're long past the point of being able to fly under the radar. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a social/criminal score tied to my name in a computer in a basement somewhere in London.

>>17093
I wouldn't say that is precisely what worries me, any debate over direct surveillance was over the day we allowed CCTV everywhere. Now it's just normal and people would be more likely to get mad over not enough data being available.

Instead what worries me is how passive this is all becoming and the danger of interlinking data as a means of social control or even re-personalisation of society. So far we've had a society of increasing anonymity after centuries of every moraliser in the village knowing your business but that's changing and I think this thread is already illustrative of how people will accept things out of simple convenience. Nothing can seemingly be done about it as an individual and indeed, you better be a good boy now or things could get painful for you and everyone who associates with you. I'd probably even have a good score but as a paranoid weirdo who just wants to be left alone it bothers me.

>>17093

>We're long past the point of being able to fly under the radar. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a social/criminal score tied to my name in a computer in a basement somewhere in London.


This is pretty much the reality we live in.

China has simply taken it a step further by being quite open about it and admitting to a full-on social scoring system. But that doesn't mean countries like the UK have nothing at all of this sort. It's just kept more hidden from view because obviously it goes against the core principles of a free democratic country as we are led to believe we still live in.

>>17092
> Maybe we'll never have social credit score
It's already there, think of knobheads offing themselves because of 'likes' - or lack of such - on social media. In less extreme cases, falling into depressive states for the same reason.
The banks have extensive profiles on people. I've seen one - just a casual glance - it wasn't pretty.
Add nosey employers/HRs that sort of vet potential candidates on social media.
It's only about when the gubmint busybodies catch wind properly and make it more formalised.
>>17097
Many moons ago I paid a visit to one of the local prisons on behalf of the company I'd worked for at that time.
Even if I expected it I was still amazed by the amount of cameras over that place.
Now when I walk through the city I just can't help and notice CCTV everywhere, and I always remind myself of that grim place.
It's ludicrous.

>>17108

>It's already there, think of knobheads offing themselves because of 'likes' - or lack of such - on social media.

In that case, they weren't going to survive life's harsh realities in the first place.

When I was a lil un, nobody ever really wanted me on their team when we were playing a bit of footie in the neighbourhood playground after school. I was very honestly shit at it, and have been all my life. But that didn't mean I was unaware of the rejection that was going on there.

Was I going to off myself at age ten because of it? No, not really. I also never really thought about offing myself when I applied for jobs and a good few companies declined to even invite me for an interview. I also never considered doing something bad to myself whenever a girlfriend dumped me.

So again, if you can't deal with people not "like"ing you on the Internet, then you are simply unfit for a normal adult life, where rejection will almost be the norm.

>>16891

>Who can after-all forget the classic of American indoctrination:

Fuck. no.

>>16891
I think they were just pissing about in most of them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYKhrcOLDas

>>16892

Isn't that more the case of Americans of the more paranoid variety mistaking advise = da ebul gubbmamint taking away our freedums

>>16899

I guess you're not really free unless you are free to be fat.

>>16891
> 'nudge theory'
Thanks for reminding me how it's called. I've been trying to recall that bloody title since the morning.
Autism thoroughly checked.

>>16817

It essentially means a weakening of the presumption of innocence.

Very generally speaking, police and other authorities can't investigate the average innocent person with no hint at all that they might be guilty of a crime, "just because". The presumption of innocence in this case means that authorities are only allowed to become active when there is an indication that something might be up with you.

But if you gather data from pretty much every citizen for the specific purpose of checking if they have done something illegal, then that's already a few steps removed from the idea that generally speaking, an innocent citizen must be left alone.

Also, the effectiveness of this kind of mass data mining is doubtful. Many European countries have had blanket online data gathering and retention programmes in place, quite a few have also abandoned them again after public protest and high court rulings in those respective countries, and when they evaluated the results of all the data gathering, they very typically found that it didn't significantly reduce online crime itself, or even increase the rate of solved crimes, which had been the biggest argument in favour of the measure. Real professional criminals typically knew how to circumvent the data gathering, as they usually do, and the only people who got caught in slightly increasing numbers were a handful of hapless kiddie porn downloaders and filesharers. But even they increasingly began to successfully cover their tracks.

Most national high courts have ruled that all this did not justify putting an entire country's population under suspicion by keeping all their online data.

>>16818

>in the US, for instance, a sentencing advisor used in some states has been recommending harsher sentences for black people because black people get harsher sentences

And these feedback loops of self evidence are what makes the whole idea so dangerous.

And it already occurs the same way with "heat maps" used by local police in some countries to predict at what time of day which areas of a city could see increased street crime. If you are then unlucky enough, especially as a black person, to be in that area at that time, then you are going to look guilty even if all you really veryfiably did was pass along that street out of sheer coincidence.

And then if you throw AI into the mix, the mere fact that you were in that area at a time when street crime was predicted to be most likely can worsen your crime probability score or whatever you want to call it.

>>16819
Did they really abandon it though or just put under a better cover?
Power trips are tough to let go.

>>16846
I imagine some did what they did in this country and basically legislated to overrule the courts. Remember that "emergency bill" to reinstate "necessary" powers? You know, the powers that the courts had ruled they should not have had?

>>16847

I think Austria axed it completely, as well as the Czech Republic. And I think Frau Merkel's government wanted to go back to data collection after Germany's high court struck it down, banking on loopholes both in EU and German high court rulings, but some ISPs in Germany then sued the government on technicalities. And the end result is that they've got a law that says ISPs must store user data, but the ISPs aren't doing it because they won the lawsuit against the German government.

There was a whole story on that on Zdnet a while ago, pretty fascinating, can't find it now.

>>16820

Well my parents used to say that I would either be a firefighter or an arsonist when I grew up, because I seemed to have a pretty noticeable fixation on fire and explosions as a little kid.

I even managed to light a Mickey Mouse book on fire in the waste bin in my bedroom. It's been over 30 years, but everytime I go to my parents' house, there's still my old waste basket in my old room, slightly wonky on one side from the heat of the burning paper in it.


Sage for not being relevant to this thread in any conceivable way.

>>16822

So which one did you end up being?

Pretty much any surface that a number of different people will touch during a day will turn out to be massively unsanitary and crawling with germs if you really examine it.

I try to limit my exposure to other people's pathogens by trying to avoid such surfaces. Or washing my hands after touching them.

For example, one thing I always do is when I've ordered something by post and I have to sign for it, I wash my hands afterwards. That stylus with which you have to sign your name on the screen of that handheld thing the delivery lad carries has to be completely covered in all kinds of muck. And it will literally go through dozens of hands every day, very likely without ever getting a proper clean.

I also avoid eating the peanuts that you always get in a little bowl for everybody at parties or in a bar or what-have-you. I think somebody actually did a petri dish test once on some communal peanuts like that and found all sorts of things from flu viruses to faecal bacteria on them. Which kind of makes it even worse than a poo smeared touchscreen at McD. Well, unless you lick that screen from top to bottom.

>>16824

I always press the pelican crossing button, and things like that, with my knuckle. I make sure and get door handles halfway down my fingers. I push doors by making a fist first. Then if I need to rub my eye or something, my fingertips haven't been violated. I use antibacterial gel when I get back in.

The last time I got flu coincided with someone thrusting a communal pen into my hand before I could get my own pen out. Now if I expect to have to sign something I have my own pen ready. I only get flu about every five years or so.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/06/how-not-to-catch-the-norovirus

>>16826

I've thought about just keeping my own stylus ready next to the door so that when I take delivery of a package, I won't have to mess with deliverylad's stylus.

But I guess I'm still a bit more worried I'll look like a cunt because of it than I am worried I'll catch some germs off it.

So I will probably just keep washing my hands thoroughly in the bathroom everytime I've signed for a package.

>>16765
I still remember that time I took out three pigeons.

>>16765
One time, in the Galapagos islands, I was feeling pretty backed up. The hostel was busy and I hadn't had a suitable opportunity to relieve myself. I'd taken the boat over to Espanola for the day. I arrived, and started to explore. Soon I found a colony of Blue-footed boobies. Although I wasn't sexually attracted to them, the combination of their name and my current situation just drove me wild. I had to nip into the bushes to quell myself. So there I was, having a grand old time, but the trouble was, the birds there have no predators, and so had no fear of me. A few waddled over to see what I was up to, but I was in full flow, I couldn't stop. It was like an oil slick. A week's worth of white oil, all over their feathers. I put the old beagle away and snuck off to look at the Albatrosses.

>>16769

Don't be such a tit

>>16769

I once actually knocked over a bird cage with my ex's birds in it while we were passionately making love on her sofa in the livingroom. At some point in the heat of passion, my leg somehow went off one end of the sofa and hit the cage stand with the cage on it which she kept near the sofa with a pair of budgies in it. The birds survived the fall unharmed, but probably got the scare of their lives.

And no, we did not resume our bonking. Not right away anyway.

>>16776
It's always ends in tears when you invite other birds into the bedroom.