Re: IR35 - typical LibLabCon PoS
First down-arrow within 3 hours, late on a Sunday evening.
Great to get a reaction so quickly from the Leftist web-lurkers who so dislike criticism of their crap ideology.
68 posts • joined 1 Apr 2010
First down-arrow within 3 hours, late on a Sunday evening.
Great to get a reaction so quickly from the Leftist web-lurkers who so dislike criticism of their crap ideology.
IR35, being brought in by Brown under Blair, is everything you would expect in a piece of legal shit from NuLabour and LibLabCon:
- weasel worded, not clearly defined, to make many interpretations available to 'civil servants';
- selective of which legal clauses apply (even if you haven't been a part of that legal agreement, or even had sight of it).
- as interpreted by 'civil servants' it will always be used by them in typical manner, or rather tyrannical manner, so that they try to bully those they hold in contempt (ordinary taxpayers) while being ready to let their mates (BBC etc) use it to disguise employment and reduce tax payments (now somewhat addressed at the BBC after newspaper stories revealing what they had been secretly doing).
This description can apply to much of the legislation brought in by NuLabour (not repealed by the LibCons, who therefore must agree with it), and such legislation is designed to be obscure and thereby oppress, as you cannot know for sure your rights under law.
Very different to the tax laws loosely applied to large corporations and their professional tax advisors (I nearly said 'evaders' - whoops!) who, coincidentally, tend to employ senior 'civil servants' in lucrative positions after they have helped implement tax legislation.
I suppose I ought to sign up - I am beginning to think this country is run by the EU.
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
How's he going to improve if no-one corrects him?
Now he's a bit better informed, would he care to clear up the errors with all the millions he has misled, or will he instead prefer to maintain his 'expert' image?
Because when information is broadcast to millions of people that information should be as accurate as possible, especially if it is being presented to them as authoritatively correct.
Still, your post is on-message with the BBC: 'We are the good guys so anything we do or say is, by definition, always right and good, and so anyone who opposes us must be evil. When we tell a fib it is good - what's the harm? Barely anyone will remember. But if someone tells a disagreeable truth we will smear them or ignore them. It's a good life we are writing over British society.'.
Hah! That would put them in an apparently difficult position to meet the criteria "...advertising in all media is legal, decent, honest and truthful, to the benefit of consumers, business and society"*, unless, of course, we have more manipulative censoring of the media?
That's what mostly irritates me about Stephen Fry's being widely accepted as technically authoritative.
It's just like watching important management decisions about IT being influenced by the tall well-spoken chap with the great looking head of hair, who is actually technically ignorant but can really convey confidence primarily because he's not trying to impart understanding.
Completely ignoring the abuse/exploitation of women's bodies angle to discuss the inadequacies of the perp's "skills" as a voyeur.
What really makes that aspect so appealing is the irony that there was probably a trained monkey in that store that could have done a 'better' job.
...doesn't tell if the camel survived the head-on collision
Just a couple of bumps. Pretty much as expected with Camel Sense Multiple Arabs with Collision Detection?
I dunno, but which do you think is easier to model:
- the complex interactions of a system with unknown variables where new items are frequently popping up,
- a set of numbers which would be effective for marketing and seeking funding?
Outsource the job to aliens who claim to have the advanced technology to have done it already! Simples, and big bonuses for the board!
Hey Klarg, have we got a backup we can restore from?
I had never heard of this before. Thank you for sorting out my contibution towards what should be a
festive feisty Christmas lunch.
Quote - "I would rather die happy with a bacon sarnie in my hands than die miserable without one."
They'll never take our fried ham*.
*Yeah, ok, I know - technically (and possibly politically) incorrect.
'cheap deer' - UEA post-modern binary
I really like your last sentence for having two relevant interpretations.
Also, your "...awesome phone..." comment hit an issue I was discussing with some friends yesterday: when idly comparing brief experiences of the various 7-inch tablets available we found more freedom and flexibility in the cheap products from an apparently totalitarian and/or communist state* than in what we were offered by more commonplace commercial companies, which had limitations geared around target consumers or targeting behaviour in a broader selection of consumers.
Of course build quality, reliability and support were agreed as being difficulties with the cheap items, but if you're only looking at a product lifetime of six-months or a year, and making them cheap enough to throw away and replace...well, how does that weigh in the balance with broader functionality?
At the moment I see these companies as responding to what consumers really want to do with what they can spend, and see the more stodgy established companies as mainly keeping on offering limited choices when they hope the limitation will hold some appeal with ideas for safe walled-garden or cloud-backup/transfer.
*Disclaimer - This description is not to be taken as accurate or reliable. I have never been to China, nor do I know any Chinese people to a level where they would confide in me their experiences in China. I have sometimes listened to the bone-headed news in the MSM.
"...Blighty's big name ISPs were told by Mr Justice Arnold to kill access to The Pirate Bay website..."
Hmm, does this mean these ISPs are legally obliged not to let any networked traffic out of their own networks - bearing in mind once a person can get out on to the internet they can definitely access TPB?
Users do not "...want compatibility with their windows programs"; what they want is to easily do things they find useful. From the increase in usage of Linux, and especially the uptake of Android tablets, it is very clear they are not 'loyal' in some way to Windows programs but just interested in cheap convenient (handy and portable) functionality.
Not being blighted with bloat, Linux can get more performance from a lower spec system than any current Microsoft OS (so MSoft needs a higher spec than Linux) and therefore Linux has recently been the natural OS for any small cheap portable computers provided it can be useful.
But to be useful Linux needs to run an appropriate application in a way that is easily accessible to the user, and as most users are not CLI literate that means using a graphic interface.
So scotching the Linux graphic interface keeps netbooks from being cheap and useful, and for most users it just kills off the netbook and then leads in to the much more expensive higher-spec netbook replacements.
However, this approach is likely to fail on the cheap and convenient requirements which most purchasers still have (not being 'loyal' to spending more money than they have to, or buying more hardware than they need to), which is why they are so enthusiastic about cheap Android tablets (Warning - these tablets may give Microsoft the shits!).
"Noo it was slow single core CPUs, slow 4200rpm HDDS and 600 pixel depth screens that killed them.
The Intel graphics was the least of the worries."
I'm guessing the 'HD graphics' thing is a bit of misunderstanding.
Dual core netbooks with Intel GMA 3600/3650 GPU and the graphics drivers unavailable for Linux really didn't help make netbooks more useful, though, seeing as it was Linux that made netbooks really perform.
Checkout Atom N2600 and N2800 associated problems mentioned here:
Quoted from the Linuxmint forum, with my emphasis in bold:
Last generation of Intel Atoms: CedarView (D2300, D2500, D2550, D2600, D2700) and Cedar Trail (N2600, N2700, N2800) SoCs integrate a PowerVR GPU from Imagination instead of the usual Intel GPU. [...] An unsupported graphic card on Linux distributions, and which can't properly support a basic desktop environnment like Unity or Gnome 3.
Yeah, with the Atom N2800 able to support 4GB memory (http://ark.intel.com/products/58917) it seems perverse it should come with the limited Win7 Starter, and also not fully support Linux. I'm sure it made some sort of sense to someone to keep netbooks restricted by the OS. (Oooh look at the shiney new thing over there - touch the $hiney, shiney screen! - £ove the shiney!)
Atom N2600 and N2800 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_N2600#.22Cedarview.22_.2832_nm.29_2
Does anyone else think it sounds a bit like a cross between the heroic Gordon Brown and spaced-out Charlie Sheen?
"...Brian Cox paraphrased this recently - but it's allowed as Feynman is his hero."
I'm guessing, though, that given the choice of Feynman's Cargo Cult Science lecture, or having his face on the box for BBC-Green fees...
But why guess, he's ALWAYS on the box, isn't he ?
Educashun and meeja!
Oh how oi laffs when I hears the Beeb talkin on bout sum govermints having "EU Technocrats" imposed upon 'em. Because whoever thought they could pass off ideological political stooges as in any way technically competent like engineers... well, they must be even more stupid than they believe we are just because we talk differently.
The "European trademark officials" could just do a quick search for Python in the Amazon books section, or is that too much like hard work?
It's just an intellectual land-grab - are there no laws* against this? [/Rhetorical - don't waste your time.]
Will not be surprised if Veber hurriedly trademark the increasingly popular and likely very productive :
'Piano-wire and Lamp-post'.
*[Use of 'law' is possibly a trademarked word or idea within the EU so fees may be liable - lawyers will decide. The phrase 'law' does not imply 'justice' which probably has tm pending by some ethically worthless bunch of conniving shysters.]
It's one for the techies and BB phone users - just search on the number of on-line videos for sorting out Playbook issues, take a look at the vids and form your own opinion.
Despite what some enthusiasts may say there are issues bringing over Android apps (sideloading, supply and performance), though this must be improving as BB make the effort to bring in more apps and experince/info spreads.
Playbook was also heavy-handed on the DRM when I checked it - no storing of BBC progs and difficulties with film transfers - so for me it made a mockery of the idea of watching programmes while commuting (I'm not really keen on watching just Canadian films, and I don't support the unquestioning and inappropriate application of North American DRM rules in the UK).
The whole issue is a mix of propaganda, science, facts, opinions and (semi-religious?) belief. There is no longer any distinction made in the MSM between:
- Natural Climate Change (going on before mankind existed)
- Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming (unhelpfully alarmist on so many levels).
And the people who point out the proven history of the power of natural climate change as a basis for querying the CAGW are now portrayed in the MSM as 'climate deniers', when they're the ones acknowledging the power of the climate.
It's worth remembering that, to survive, mankind needed technology to protect against and relieve some of the effects of natural climate change. Now we're being asked to believe that we should rely less on such protection, and instead divert those resources to making the climate behave 'normally'? And in the process make some unscrupulous people very, very rich?
This is why it is important that the BBC should be open about how it sources it's policy on CAGW, because we need to know if the BBC is pushing propaganda or science. It is very worrying that they spend so much money on lawyers in order to keep this secret, when it plays such a large part in shaping public opinion, and probably government policy.
Depend how many (very probably non-IT) political trolls are infesting the web.
Given the BBC Savile/Newsnight fiasco they are probably mostly targetting the less specialised mainstream sites. Still a few around though. I think some of them like this site because they confuse 'ignoring their stupidity' with 'accepting their stupidity'.
Nice going - I criticise a specific staged-for-effect lab 'experiment' and you keep my criticisms but change the context. I guess if I wrote that I'm sorry you're so transparent you'd portray that as an apology; you don't happen to write for the Grauniad, do you?
Ah, AGW 'science' - gotta love it.
Your little 'experiment' has just shown that we don't have a problem with CO2 as a greenhouse gas, because your glass cylinder containing air also contained atmosphere CO2.
If you wanted to test an atmospheric CO2 rise of some large percentage it would make very little difference because an enormous percentage rise in bugger all is still bugger all (atmospheric CO2 is approx 390 ppm making it 0.039% of air, why don't you try a 100 percent increase of CO2 to 0.078% of air in your glass jar and see how little difference that makes).
If you want to pretend that we might have a problem with warming if our whole atmosphere was CO2 I can tell you we wouldn't be around to notice it - I didn't need to model that.
You can create computer models to give any result you want from almost any data - ask UEA - but unless the models have a direct relation to real experimental data they are useless for making policy, especially SCAMMER* policies committing our civilisation to direct resources and technology away from real problems.
*SCAMMER = Science Corrupting, Alarmist, MoneyMilking-Emergency Religion
Next time BAA will have 'anti-terrorist' security staff ready to confiscate mobile phones so the BAA lies about how well they look after their customers go unchallenged in the media.
Actually, at the time, I was surprised how much coverage the BBC gave to mobile phone footage from inside Heathrow and BAA's reaction to the snow, but now the SCAMMERs* (TM) have started pushing the line that ALL nasty weather is due to MMGW/CAGW I see that coverage didn't go against the BBC agenda.
*Science Corrupting, Alarmist, MoneyMilking-Emergency Religion
A previous Reg article about this device mentioned: "an armour piercing variant - presumably intended for impact rather than airburst, and using a shaped-charge warhead ".
Given the accuracy and penetration, any possible use as a way of dealing with suspected IEDs from a distance rather than sending a man in?
AC: "...the rest of the West weren't exactly pleasant ..." You what?? Take a gander at what the Japanese are keen to keep quiet:
"Unit 731 was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) and World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japanese personnel."
"Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants."
I may be getting thicker as I get older but from the 'explanations' in the story I couldn't figure out what had been happening, so I followed the Kable link hoping for more info and found two sub-headings next to each other:
'Yorkshire NHS and police admit data breaches'
'NHS resumes SCR mailings to patients'
Which led me to "...a cleaner at a Rotherham hospital viewing a friend's private medical files."
To check for an organ match, perhaps?
Right, because of course consenting adults going about their lawful business should be hassled by police confusing their own individual morality with society's laws.
And prostitution isn't illegal in the UK, you ignoramus.
So, "Deputy Chief Constable Simon Byrne, ACPO's lead on prostitution and sexual exploitation ... would like to see the police setting up a database of “ugly mugs” – or individuals believed to pose a risk to sex workers."
Individuals believed to pose a risk to sex workers? - Doesn't that mean all senior plod and a lot of moralising politicians?
Run! Run, run, run away.
Headline = "Hate mob’s terror reign"
Quote from article = "Police say there were no reports of any injuries to officers or members of the public and no damage reported."
Somewhat of a mismatch, I think.
AC: "We live in a very fragile world where one nut-job can push the nuke button at any time"
Sounds to me like you're in the USA.
My perspective (in Britain) is that (edited slightly) "People MIGHT POSSIBLY die as a result of these intentional disclosures of classified documents" (btw really crap security); however, if the people of Britain had similar access to secret documents before Blair took us to war because he 'knew it was right' we wouldn't be in the ...um, to simplify let's call it... totally shit position we are now with hundreds of brave service men dead and crippled - all because of official lies pushed with no real scrutiny.
So, let's look at the scores:
- leaks MAY cause deaths (so far zero announced but I'm sure MIB are trying);
- UK Government cold-blooded and self-serving secrets HAVE caused the deaths and suffering of thousands - but, to be fair, Tony is a lot, lot richer.
Well Govt should "spends money on roads, rail, armed forces, schools, health " rather than on ideological nonsense and spin-doctors, but other than that First Class.
Now please take a lead pipe and explain it to the HoC and any other politicians you meet.
That's you, isn't it Maggie? Clever using the name Ted...great double-bluff.
Ted Treen: "The trouble with socialists...is that they inevitably run out of other people's money."
Maggie Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "
I wonder if Maggie was thinking of a particular politician when she said: "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't."
SB: "All of them?"
Maybe just the FIT ones?
Mine's the double-sided coat with a different cap in each pocket, and a burqa in the poacher's pocket.
Some people learn from other's experiences; some have to piss on the electrified fence.
What do you think other coppers will have learned from Shaw's experiences - report corruption or keep quiet?
Will this lead to more or less corruption in the higher ranks - you know, the ones quickest to get on board with increasing politicisation of the police?
IMO most people do support the police when they go after criminals (yay Gene Hunt), but some of us feel the police are largely moving away from the public's concerns and into an us-and-them behaviour where the police are in one corner and the criminals and public are shoved together in another corner.
From this viewpoint all that has happened is that Shaw got shoved out of the police corner by the police because he stuck by the standards the public hopes the police have.
Once again I'm impressed by the the Beeb's news reporting:
cat in a bin = headlines;
corrupt coppers colluding = silence.
Maybe the Beeb regards the coppers' actions as normal/acceptable - wouldn't surprise me.
Hey El Reg, from what was reported, how come Shaw was awarded so little?
"our response to this technology challenge is compatible with the government’s approach to information storage and civil liberties", i.e don't give a shit about them.
It's usually not a mutually satisfactory agreement between robber and bank though, is it?
And if there can be a mutually satisfactory agreement between sex-worker and client why should there be laws to create/increase danger for either or both, when most would accept that our laws should be created primarily to reduce intentional danger and harm rather than pander to the twisted views of those posturing as morally superior?
"Head/Helmet worn (Anti-Sniper) Laser Targeting Detection Sensors!"
Or how about something to simply foil the laser targeting, such as the always useful multi-purpose* crinkled 'tinfoil hat'?
*Can also be used, with a little loud mumbling, to get a seat on a crowded train.
Re: CCTV - if cameras work when it suits the police but don't work when it doesn't, so not both at the same time, is this a reformulation of the Cop-enhagen Interpretation?
"under Labour you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent", or as Labour regard it 'getting off this time on an unwelcome technicality'.
“I have the $350,000 house. I have the six-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize.”... in any claim for compensation due to harassment and distress.
Steve Jobs says "Sorry."
Frankly I'm stunned - two more key presses than FOAD.
FUD! - the sound of the number of recommendations for Zone Alarm going through the floor.
I used to recommend Zone Alarm in order to avoid problem calls, not to generate them.
Yep, have to wonder what was said/promised and to whom to get the police to undertake this criminal investigation.