2314 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
> MPs had ended three centuries of freedom from political interference of the published word
Alternatively: newspaper owners gave up 300 years of responsible reporting and professionalism.
Saying that something is "in the public interest" is an easy and lazy defence that can be applied to pretty much any newspaper article. It's also completely unprovable - and attributing increased sales is the worst possible rationalisation for "public interest".
What's happened to newspapers is what happens every day in thousands of households across the land: where exasperated parents say to their misbehaving toddlers "if you won't play nicely, we're taking your toys away". The press brought this sorry state of affairs on themselves. Maybe they thought they were "too big to
fail regulate" - it looks like their arrogance was called.
Re: (Still) fixing the wrong problem
> iRobot also makes military robots.
But at least there'll be a nice clean battlefield after their robots have killed / bombed / strafed the crap out of every living thing on or near it. (So long as there aren't any stairs).
Hopefully their revision control software won't get the robo-butler and military versions mixed up.
(Still) fixing the wrong problem
If you want to differentiate a packet of bog rolls from a packet of crisps why not just read the bar code (that's what it's there for, after all)? If you're a vacuum cleaner I'd far prefer your developers spent time on getting you to climb stairs, and to be able to get the cobwebs off the ceiling, than teaching you to identify 57 varieties of chair.
The only thing a vacuum cleaner needs to know about objects in its path is not WHAT they are, but their properties: movable/immovable, fragile or prone to injury - and then to take a limited set of actions depending on those properties (and erring on the side of caution, natch).
Look out for ice
Just make sure that your magnets don't get dewed up during the ascent. The dew could freeze the magnets together, so that the pull-apart force is no longer defined by the strength / size of the magnets, but by the amount of ice holding them together.
Not much new
> has Parliament just voted to regulate internet speech?
No, it's always been regulated. You have NEVER been able to say anything you please, online (just like in real life). You can't tell lies about people, you can't make false claims for things you sell, or have bought and reviewed. You can't make hateful statements and you can't incite naughtyness. In short - anything that you can't say in print (already) has always been restricted on the internet - even if enforcement has been on the non-existent side of inconsistent and spotty.
However if this new set of rules actually gets ENFORCED, in the way the old set never was then I really, really hope it will finally put an end to most of the innuendo, bitchiness, snide comments and general nastiness that passes for tabloid journalism: either in print or online.
Re: Oh FFS.
> it's quite hard to avoid buying stuff that's advertised on TV
I've never had the slightest inclination to buy any of the crap that's advertised on TV. Although I imagine that for women the situation is different - as most of the adverts are for their sort of "stuff".
The new injection moulding
In the 50's and 60's there was a large increase in the availabilty of cheap tat from the far east. This came about from cheap injection moulding technology, that became affordable and allowed manu's to fill the world with little plasticky things, often with rough edges that would break after a short time.
Obviously the technology improved - as did the ability of people who designed stuff for IM manufacture. So today there is less tat and more high-quality IM produced stuff around. To the point where nobody cares, or knows, what the process was that created all the stuff they surround themselves with.
3D printing is similar. As it's still in the novelty stage, the attribute "3D printed" is often promoted more than the actual thing that was produced. Whether or not you consider the stuff to be cheap (or expensive) plasticky tat is up to the reader. However the technology still has a way to go before it matures to the point where nobody, except the maker, cares how their new "thing" was produced.
The one thing I can see that stands in the way of 3D printing is the speed of production. It still seems to be a slow, rasterised, process. Adding one thin layer after another. While the low speed of the "printer" lends itself to making high-precision parts, it's pretty hopeless at making them by the million. Until the process can match the speed of other manufacturing processes, it will always be a high-cost, niche technique. Great for one-offs, but useless for making a billion keyboard key-caps a year.
In other news ...
... workers commute durations have been found to average less than 10 minutes - providing they live within 5km of their work and don't travel in peak times.
Apart from OFCOM coming up with meaningless, unrealistic drivel (as usual), what exactly is their point?
Are they trying to imply that somehow their "regulation" powers have had something to do with this? Are they really saying that internet speeds are something they simply don't understand - or know how to measure properly? Maybe the subtext is that even with them not doing a single dam' thing to (ever) make anything better, that it's still possible to fudge the figures to make it appear that they've done some good?
Why do they keep wasting our time ...
Online advertising's greatest flaw
... is that advertisers can actually MEASURE it's efficacy.
With good, old-fashioned advertising there was little, if any, way of telling how well a particular advertisement was working. Sure, occasionally one advertisement would go stratospheric and everyone would win an award (even if sales didn't twitch) - but the main reason for mainstream advertising was that YOU had to do it because everybody else was, too.
With the 'net that's all changed. The old saying that: "half of all advertising money is wasted - but nobody knows which half" is no longer true - either in degree or analysis. We now know that most advertising money is wasted, either by targeting the wrong (or none) audience, preaching to the converted or being too expensive for the returns it produces.
So, given that anyone with their finger on the pulse of their advertising budget can see where it's gurgling down the plug 'ole (to mix a few metaphors), it's a wonder that anyone still bothers with it. Until you look back at the alternatives.
Re: Anything we can do
> I don't think you can draw any statistical inference from one data point.
Maybe not, but you can build a whole internet full of conjecture on it.
Anything we can do
(on average) half the aliens can do better. It's reasonable to assume that humanity is nothing special so far as speed of development goes. So it's a reasonable guess, based on zero evidence, that half the aliens out there are more advanced than we are.
So if we can detect alien light, there must be lots of sentient races that can do the same, and have developed the tech. to tell them more about all the other alien races their SETI programmes have marked out.
On that basis, where the hell are they? Sure some will have a prime-directive sort of philosophy and not want to "pollute" us. Some will have seen our TV and decided we're (a) doomed, (b) best left well alone (c) in fear of their sanity. Yet some must have some inking of curiosity and at least started to say "Hi There!" - or "Don't you know there are laws against squirting radio waves everywhere".
However, if humanity really is the most advanced, or only, technological race in this part of the galaxy, then it doesn't say much for evolution.
2001 still does it for me
By far the best of the bunch. Though when someone (so long as it isn't Spielberg) gets round to filming Neuromancer or possibly The Shockwave Rider they could give it a run for its money.
Good call leaving out The Matrix IMHO. Far too many self-indulgent SFX getting in the way of the story.
Looks like they've found their beta tester
Let's see if the system really doesn't have any problems. Who'd bet their benefits on it?
Fixing the wrong problem
> will not work with a severed hand
If a baddie is in a position to hack a hand off someone who's bank account they wanted to raid, they would also be able to say to the victim "either we hack off both your hands (to be sure we have the correct one) or you come with us."
Given that choice I can see the victim ALWAYS choosing to do the deed with hands still intact. So the possibility, cheesy films notwithstanding, of the machine ever being offered a dead 'un is just not a real-life situation.
> A UK hacker behind bars for computer fraud
So the guy wasn't smart enough to not get caught, which is how he ended up prison in the first place. Yet he thought (somehow) that a computer with the sole purpose of maintaining a secure environment would be a good target to hack. Even though once (inevitably) the intrusion attempt was flagged, the number of suspects who had the opportunity, the intent and the
skills history of failure would land him in the spotlight before he could hit <RETURN>
Shrug: the offer's as good as the survey results
Surveys are notoriously unreliable. People either try to guess the "right" answers, respond according to what they think the surveyor wants, don't understand the questions or have a "none of the above" reply.
So if people are getting suckered in to filling out surveys with implausibly generous bait being offered, then it appears that both sides of the understanding (what the punter says and what rewards they are offered) are equally bogus. At last the world of customer surveys are found an equilibrium point!
Re: Play hard to get
Maybe - please send photo of the fish
Play hard to get
> Laid head-to-toe
If there's any "laying" to be done, I'd want someone to buy me dinner first.
It's bad ... because it's bad.
> The MP ain't talking about what's on tv. She's talking about the kind of material available on the internet which noone in their right mind would suggest is suitable for young teens.
Completely agree. However the basic problem is that the whole topic is marginalised or taboo. Until it's possible to debate the subject unemotionally and with no sniggering at the back, it will not be possible to address the root cause, which is the taboo nature of the topic.
In that respect, it shares the same properties as discussions about drugs. Because hard drugs are illegal, society cannot (or will not) address the problems that drugs cause. All that happens is the discussion always comes back to " ... because they're illegal". At which point no progress can be made in helping the victims or destigmatising those at the unfortunate end of the problem.
Get it all out in the open
The basic problem with sex, skin, sexual content, sexting etc. is that it IS considered "nasty" or "dirty" or "shameful" and it's impossible to have a mature discussion about it. Just look at the way the media deals with smut: on TV it must be post-watershed so the little darlings can't be "perverted" by the sight of something half the population has or worse: the sight of two people using their bodies in ways that might lead to embarrassing questions of their parents.
The tabloid press is even worse in their hypocrisy. On the one hand going to great lengths to seek out unintended photos and on the other lambasting those who don't fall into a narrow category of what's considered "normal" behaviour by the prudish readers and the professionally angry journalists.
We are brought up (for better or worse) in an environment where violent death is on the screen nightly (and even during the day) and few ever complain: probably because they've given up complaining. Yet the wrong piece of skin on the wrong channel at the wrong time causes ructions amongst the regulators and those who's hobby seems to be getting
aroused apoplectic about nudity.
What's the answer? short of banning clothes during the summer when it's warm enough, I can't think of a way to get past the entrenched opinions.
Evade the benefits
> you should be eligible for things like Working Tax Credits
There's an online calculator at:
For people who have no kids/partners living with them and with a half-decent income you quickly arrive at the answer
Sorry, because your total income is more than £13,000 a year, you probably don't qualify for tax credits.
Set your targets low enough ...
... and it doesn't look too bad when you miss them.
> investigating tax worth £1 billion
The government collects over half a TREEELLION pounds in tax every year. So the odd "bil" will neither make much difference, nor be difficult to squeeze out of the system without to much complaint. However, for the populace it makes a nice headline. A billion pounds sounds like a lot, and indeed it is to an individual. But in terms of what it would buy: given how good the finance people are at jacking up the cost of public projects, it's a drop in the ocean.
Fortunately that oceanic drop also means it won't be missed when the bean counters discover that the tax accountants hired by corporations are cleverer and more motivated to save their bosses dosh, than some under-motivated government clerk is at collecting it.
Humanity can thank us later
And a jolly good thing too, that engineers are cold (or should that be rational) and unemotional. Otherwise we'd still be sitting round log fires debating what colour this new-fangled "wheel" thing should be.
tip 'o the hat to DA
The going rate
> worth a cool £1bn
and they'll still only pay a couple of quid in business rates on the building
File under: Laughable
> your typical PR type is in fact a selfless crusader for truth and justice
Old joke alert: What's the difference between a car salesperson and a computer salesperson? The car salesperson knows when they're lying
The moral being that it's possible to believe you're telling the truth - especially when you don't have the foggiest idea about the technology, the principles or the theory of what you're trying to flog. Alternatively if you're easily convinced (or want to believe) that a certain thing is true you can then become a fanatical proponent of that - even if everyone around you think it's complete bollocks.
So, a good PR person will believe whatever story it is they're trying to foist on the rest of us. They cannot therefore be blamed for thinking they're doing the right thing, or that their evangelical energy is misplaced. We should feel sorry for them (while patting them on the head and saying "yes, of cooooourse it does") rather than lambasting them. Just don't be taken in by their patter, no matter how convincing it may sound.
cloudy flexibility meets touchy-feely
> a top down project akin to building an aircraft carrier
The first step should be to kick all the IT people off this project. Stop thinking of it as a computer to help medical people and start thinking about what those people want to do. Then apply the least amount of technology that will meet the needs of the users.
Most people in the caring professions are there because they are drawn to the personal interaction with patients, they want to do tangible stuff (like sticking on plasters) that makes people better. The ones I have met do not want to spend their days as data-entry clerks, although last time an aged relative was admitted three different members of the nursing staff sat with AR at various times during the day and wrote down on paper pretty much the same information - most of which we could have done while sitting in the waiting room, waiting to be called in.
So if this project is going to be a success - and the odds don't seem to be in its favour - the starting point must be to create a system around the way the medical staff like, or choose, to work and to make THAT JOB easier. If it starts from an IT perspective of "let's give these people new practices and procedures that will make them more productive" than it will get sidelined and ignored, just like the previous failures.
All research should be self-financing
And in most innovative (c.f. companies that grow merely by gobbling up the innovators, rather than doing and R&D themselves) companies research IS self-financing. In fact it makes a profit.
The profit that good research makes is the company profit as without the R&D and the products it gives rise to, there would be no company. Sure, it's a gamble. You start 10 research / development projects and maybe one bears fruit. But so long as the people who make decisions have a grip on the costs and prospective returns - and know what to cancel and when, that 1 success will easily pay for the 9 failures.
Even the failures can make you money. All you have to do is patent every single aspect of them and then lie in wait for some other company to wander into your patent minefield and then set the lawyers on them. Though in civilised countries, that's frowned upon - it's not really cricket, is it?
Re: Skills Shortage
> For some reason (in the UK) a highly skilled technical person cant possibly earn more than his manager!
Which is why contracting was invented. It's a kludge, but if you want to employ staff outside of the constraints of a salary structure intended for administration staff (not IT admin) with no tangible outputs or profit margin, then subbies are the way to go. Even if some of them don't produce anything of worth, either.
Couldn't agree more
> starts paying attention to the people that actually use the technology.
And who actually uses the technology? Not the CIOs, locked away in the executive suite, so they don't have to come into contact with the icky, nasty "sharp end" of reality. Maybe the group the government should be listening to are the experienced IT workers (the ones the CIOs say are in short supply - wonder why that could be - surely not because of the CIOs lack of training investment? )who know what needs to be done and how to do it, irrespective of what the vendors or the chief executives might think.
The problem with this suggestion is that the answer might not be what the government wants to hear. I would suggest they want an attaboy for their current policies and some reorganisational changes that cost nothing, but look like progress - possibly with a few seats on a few boards for when their parliamentary careers are over. However I suspect the people who know would tell them all the unpalatable (i.e. expensive) truths - and worse: do it in public.
Re: I like wearing suits, although the opportunity rarely presents itself.
So wearing an £x00 suit suddenly makes you credible?
You realise that's not a very clever or practical way to judge actual ability or predict performance?
Does it really not bother you that all it takes to persuade the unknowing that you're a serious professional with decades of experience and a no-nonsense attitude is clothes?
This fact on its own explains why so much corporate process is a temple to idiocy. As Dominic Connor would doubtless point out, it's all about appearance management and the faking of credibility, not reality-based talent and ability.
I can't argue with any of your views about how the world should be. All I can say is, as with many things we have to put up with, it defies logic. But railing against the "is" in favour of the "ought to" doesn't help me achieve my goals. So, when I know that my proposal is the best solution I have no qualms to using whatever (legal / ethical) means of persuasion have the greatest effect. For me, in my particular situation, dressing as you would for a job interview (which is another situation where we hope to impress & persuade) seems to help. It may only boost my confidence, or it may present me as a professional. Either way, I find that I get fewer objections, and occasionally people call me "sir"!
Re: I like wearing suits, although the opportunity rarely presents itself.
> But people who regularly wear a suit to the office?
I find it saves a great deal of time. Time that I would otherwise have to spend establishing my credibility.
A lot (possibly: most) of the meetings I have to present at or contribute to, have decision makers who are not that technical. What I mean by that is they don't know the difference between a gigabyte and their elbow. That doesn't mean they're bad at their jobs, just that their jobs and mine have few intersections: I don't understand their jargon, processes or motivations and they don't understand mine - but we do have a mutual respect for each other's position. However, if you want sign-off or approval for a project, investment or piece of development, you need their nod.
It might not be the best situation, but it's the one we have. Since I'm not in the business of changing the world, you learn to play by its rules.
Now, I can go to the small amount of trouble of pulling a suit, shirt and tie out of the wardrobe - or I can spend the first half hour of a meeting with strangers (whom i may or may not have to build a working relationship with) trying to convince them that I DO know what I'm talking about and that they should listen to what I have to say. If I want their respect, I have to show some of my own - and that means indicating that I've gone to the trouble of taking them seriously and dressing in a way that they expect serious, professional people to present themselves. If it's my "outward appearance" that helps convince them, then so be it - it's a small price to pay for getting what I want. Luckily it seems to be a successful strategy, for all concerned: my career and the business.
It's still the same old programmes
Whether you watch in B&W or glorious colour, the programmes are still the same. The news isn't any different, the soaps are just as cheesy, the comedies either make you laugh - or not and the documentaries have the same pretty images and narrative, irrespective of whether your telly displays the chrominance signal or not.
The same can be said for 4::3 formats vs. 16::9 or SD / HD. No matter what format or technology, you still get the same old programmes. So if you're happy with B&W, can't tell the difference or you do manage to get away with the cheaper licence then great. You're not missing that much in terms of actual TV content: merely the superficialities of how you perceive it.
@ Andrew Moore
> The standard Spanish methodology in this is to build first and ask permission later giving the "well, it's already done now" or "es completo ahora" excuse.
I'd be surprised if that still works (unless you're building entire housing estates). The whole licensing thing in Spain is a money raising caper. The Town Hall charge typically 3% of the cost of the job to give you the rubber stamp. If you did try the old "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" ruse not only would they rake in a nice big fine, but you'd still have to pay for the license.
You may even suffer the ignominy of paying the fine and then being required to dismantle / demolish your "illegal" works, and THEN to apply for a licence to rebuild it.
> stumping a huge wad for some electrician to sign a piece of paper
But that's what the whole spanish (black) economy runs on. When we got our casa a few years back, Endesa (the local power company) told us that the mere act of buying the house required an outside meter box to be installed - there being only a sticky-out box on the outside wall and the "new" regulations required this to be flush with the wall. Oh, and we had to get a boletin, too.
In practice, the Boletin meant that "an amigo of an amigo" popped round, slapped a steel box into the hole I'd prepared, yeso'd it in place (all spanish houses are held together with yeso: a sort of industrial strength plaster) cast a furtive eyeball over with wiring, stamped his stamp and charged €350 for the half-hour job. Another visit to the Endesa office, clutching said Boletin, resulted a day or two later in a man in a van arriving with the shiny new meter that was duly installed in the box and the classic phrase: Let there be light came true. Luckily in our part of Spain, the "potencia" comes in 3.3kW (15 Amps), 4.4kW (20A) or 5.5kW steps - though actually getting the 220 Volts needed to drive these levels is often a hit and miss affair. 180 -190 Volts being closer to the norm.
The only sensible way to think of the process, isn't to scowl at the inefficiency of the system, or the cost of the paltry amount of work, or the illogical regulations. You just have to take a deep breath, smile sweetly, hand over the cash and consider the whole thing philosophically as the hoops you have to jump through if you want electricity.
Immature is as immature does
> some knowledge that the system is still too immature to handle – namely, the contents of the Urban Dictionary
> Almost immediately, Watson began casually dropping profanity into its everyday speech, such as answering one researcher's query with the less-than-scientific term "bullshit."
Surely the immaturity lies with those individuals who were unable to tolerate such a common and (it must be said) inoffensive form of language?
As to "profane" - look up the meaning.
Supply and demand
> a serious lack of engineering graduates in the country. He claimed there would be a shortfall of around 60,000 people this year
Oh goody! That level of scarcity, if it REALLY does exist, means that engineering salaries will rise massively in order to attract people into the industry.
What's that I hear you say, Sooty? Engineering salaries are as low as they've always been and graduate engineers can't get jobs? Maybe there isn't a shortage of engineers at all. Maybe the only problem is that people like Dyson (who, given the quality of some of his products - not known as "Die soon"'s for nothing) simply aren't willing to pay the going rate and just want 60,000 CHEAP engineers, rather that well trained ones.
> many of us hang on to our sets for half a decade despite the industry's attempts to get us into annual upgrades.
Dream on TV makers. My CRT equipped set was bought in 1988 and ran for over 15 years until it was replaced for reasons of size. There won't be any new TV formats (3D, ultra-HD, smelly-vision) that would make us want to upgrade. So, barring technical failure I fully expect to be staring at the same screen for 10+ years and to never buy another TV again.
After the current crop of TVs eventually go pop, it's unlikely that the replacement would be a TV set - just a piggin' big screen with lots of ancillary gizmos attached, just like 1980's stereo systems: wires all over the place - happy days!
Headline price and REAL price
Somehow I doubt that this will be all the DoD pays for their shiny new stuff. Once the extras, ooops - we forgot's, sorry that's not in the contract's and unforeseen situations that will need additional help at the FULL PRICE are taken into account (which we'll never hear about) I have no doubt this deal will come out to be very similar in total cost to what every other MS customer would pay - seat for seat.
Commercial companies are masters of the art of separating government departments from
our taxes their money. After all, governments have little incentive to be economical or fiscally prudent (and defence departments even less so) as they can always mug the proles for more tax-cash or sell more bonds that they'll never pay back, if they ever start to run short.
So I'm sure MS are letting the military have their little neener, knowing full-well that their sales bonuses are very, very safe for many years to come.
Bucking the trend
> leaving network operators in the impossible position of being unable to raise prices against rising costs
Kinda strange, when IT equipment almost always GOES DOWN in price over the years. Sounds more like a case of charging what the market will bear, than trying to make any savings or efficiency improvements - which you'd expect in a truly competitive industry.
Easy to understand why ...
> Apple did not return a request for comment
They couldn't get to their email as all their stuff had been nicked
The legal / regulatory aspect is just one side of the non-acceptance issue. The other side is consumer trust (or: lack of it). Until recent years all innovation was tangible - stuff you could touch, put in a drawer and forget about, stuff you could turn off and be safe in the knowledge that it WAS off.
These days so much innovation happens outside the area of user control. Phones that track you (sure, you can turn them off; but then you can't make calls). Websites that know everything you've clicked on. Companies that "need" your personal information just to sell you a sausage roll.
The problem is that the ordinary people feel that all this new stuff is
a) outside their control
b) likely to steal all their money, publish naked photos of them, sue them, get them arrested and/or keep coming back no matter how hard you try to delete/remove/turn off or bury them.
And it's not just ordinary people that are having trouble. Even the people supposedly in charge are getting bitten in the bum by their technology: Gordon Brown and the live radio mike (bigot-gate) incident?
Now whether these problems are real or imaginary is immaterial. We keep hearing about problems: people getting their bank accounts emptied, etc. and the fear of a problem is usually the reason for lack of take-up of new gadgets and innovations - not the problem itself. The reason being the lack of trust and feeling of powerlessness in our relationship with these new-fangled, electronic gizmos.
Maybe when every new gadget comes with an "Ooops, I didn't mean to do that" button that simply undoes everything and can be TRUSTED to put everything to rights, then we'll start to see ordinary people feeling more positive about innovation - instead of feeling that they need a PhD in CompSci just to understand the manual.
> “You know, we don't always understand what the singers say.”
On that note, it's possible that Frankie Goes to Hollywood"'s greatest achievement was to liberate the lyrics of Born to Run from Bruce Springsteen's mumblings.
"Beyond the Palace the hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard / Girls comb their hair in rear view mirrors and the boys try to look so hard" - who'da known?
The mishearing song lyrics has a long and distinguished history. So distinguished, there's even a word for it.
However, in the particular instance: try listening to it through headphones - it's at about 3:30 into the track¹ and (if you crank it up to 11) comes over loud and clear.
I suspect a worse source of error in the internet / smartphone age is autocorrect.
 Return of the Manticore, side 3 track 3.
What a waste of a morning
> After studying 400 avatars
> physical attractiveness [ was equated to ] the waist-chest ratios
An alternative theory is that some researcher got caught playing a computer game by his/her/its boss and made up some cockamamie story about "research" and "virtual worlds". Then they found they had to follow through when the boss said "Carry on, I look forward to reading your conclusions".
So far, so fair enough. However the really sad part of the whole affair is that after scxrambling around for an hour or two to knock together some words and meaningless statistics of dubious quality, they managed to find a publication
gullible desperate enough for material to accept, and peer-review, it.
Coming next, maybe: the effect of a hang-over on FPS scores?
> All I see is that the tax take has risen,
Try here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963 for another view, It shows that since the 1960's the overall tax take as a proportion of GDP has always been somewhere in the thiry-percents.Even though during that half-century, the amount we have earned (our wealth?) has increased about fifty-fold.
Just a bunch of wiggly lines?
Okaaaay, so the "workers' share" dropped a bit during the Eighties: from a long-term figure in the high fifties, percentage-wise to a number a little below 55 once the hump and following dip from 1990-2000 is levelled out.
Now pardon me, but didn't the late 70's and 1980's see a sharp rise in unemployment / jobless numbers? If you have fewer people working (for whatever reason) wouldn't that reduce wages, too?
For all the words in this piece - some of which I could make sense of - I can't see what the author expects to be done. ISTM the point is that workers are getting less, and government is taking more. Maybe that's true, but that's just slicing up the same cake in different ways: it's not as if taxes are removed from society and the money is burned - it's still there and is still spent. If a government took less off us - to spend on public benefits like the NHS - wouldn't all t'workers have to spend a larger proportion of their increased wages on the stuff they no longer got for free? Things like saving for their old-age, meds, child benefits, putting cash aside for time "on the bench" instead of getting the dole / housing benefit, driving granny around instead of her having a free bus pass (and a free TV licence). So the same money would just be spent by different people, but on the same things. There would be some choice: does Johnny get a new pair of spectacles, or do we have a day at the seaside? but there would still only be the same amount of money in the country.
ISTM the main reason wages are dropping is that so few people make stuff we can sell for a profit. You can't run a country on service industries: such as Taking in each others laundry. You'd have nice, clean clothes but no food to eat. Someone, somewhere has got to make / grow / invent all the stuff to earn the money we spend. Flipping burgers and selling insurance ain't going to cover it.
The basic fallacy
is to believe what people say rather than what they do.
I'm sure a lot of the population would prefer companies pay more tax - just so long as that doesn't lead to those same people being charged more for the goods they buy. So when faced with the choice between buying from a "good" company or a cheap one, most people will let their wallets lead the way.
This is no different from all the wailing holidaymakers who vow never to fly on RyanAir (again), yet join the queue to squeeze their carry-on into that airlines bag-check frames every year.
Talk is cheap, web chatter is cheaper still, yet none is as cheap or fleeting as pontifications over what's moral, or right.
> higher pressure when hitting with a fist,
If hands did evolve for fighting, rather than tool carrying (or to whack other people with large sticks) you would expect that the bones in the hand and wrist would be strengthened, due to natural selection, so that they were less likely to break (known as a boxers fracture) when used to thump an opponent.
Since this evolutionary trait did not develop - people still break bones in their hands when they hit someone, unless they've been trained properly on how to hit - this explanation does sound unlikely.
A better explanation for why humans have shorter fingers and thumbs is surely so that its easier to send TXTs.
Needs a dam' sight more than a chair
I reckon if we filled all the seats from all the olympic stadia throughout the world with the brightest legal minds on the planet, they might, just, have a fighting chance of staving off the combined stupidity of the american patent system and all the vested interests intent on their own intangible land grab.
> like concerts and theatre where you can't tolerate 0.1s delay between actors & instruments
It's a long time since I dabbled in TV (university course, back in the analog days), but I do seem to recall being told that to make the audio sound "right", there's an artificial delay of some 100's of mSec introduced specifically so that actors lips move at the same time that the sound reaches the viewers ears.
So long as the right amount of delay between sound and vision is introduced, and kept constant the absolute time delay between recording the "live" event and the time it makes it through to the TV is immaterial. I often notice that in our house a TV tuned to a terrestrial channel leads another TV tuned to the same channel on satellite (not surprisingly) by a second or two.
- Top Gear Tigers and Bingo Boilers: Farewell then, Phones4U
- Analysis iPhone 6: The final straw for Android makers eaten alive by the data parasite?
- Stephen Pie iPhone 6: Most exquisite MOBILE? No. It is the Most Exquisite THING. EVER
- First Crack Bloke buys iPHONE 6 and DROPS IT to SMASH on PURPOSE
- Early result from Scots indyref vote? NAW, Jimmy - it's a SCAM