... at least the French people have a *chance* of possibly stopping their data simply being flogged off to the rich mates of their Government.
Of course whether it *stays* that way...
6191 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... at least the French people have a *chance* of possibly stopping their data simply being flogged off to the rich mates of their Government.
Of course whether it *stays* that way...
"...he could walk around the room and the TV would float along with him at the same distance."
And then he tripped over the coffee table.
> 6.88, -6.82.
RIght (pun not intended!), so whilst I am to the left of you, I'm certainly not a "Leftie".
> trade doesn't change the number of jobs in a country
I really don't see how that follows.
If there is trade, beyond that of basic barter, there is a need for money, so bankers and accountants. There's shops to sell the goods, so retail staff. There's tax on the money and wages, so tax collectors...The employees have more money, so they can buy more etc etc etc...
Therefore the more trade, the more demand, so the consequential higher need for these other jobs. Conversely, if trade diminishes (for instance if a supply starts becoming exhausted) the production costs will go up, the price will go up, the demand will remain the same (or fall as people look for alternatives) but the number of people selling the product will diminish, hence fewer associated jobs.
If the jobs move elsewhere in the world, because it's cheaper to employ people there, there will be fewer jobs in the original location, fewer people employed there, so less money to spend in that local economy, so they will be less well off even allowing for the (presumably) cheaper goods because the amount they save on the cheaper products is unlikely to equate to the amount of income they've lost.
Someone, somewhere else, might be better off, but that's pretty cold comfort for the newly unemployed.
> You need to find a new philosophy
Even ignoring the massive Godwin, I think you need to first understand what Communism is because if you think I'm advocating it, you *really* haven't understood what I'm saying.
Try having a look at the Political Compass site and look at where Communism is and then see how far removed from its ideas I am...
> And the answer to that is simple, stop bloody taxing poor people.
On that, at least, Tim, we can certainly agree.
But that does, of course, still depend on people actually *having* jobs which a) haven't been "globalised" to some other part of the world and b) pay at least the minimum wage not only per hour, but also for a enough hours a week for it to make a difference, instead of Zero Hours where you work (or not) at the whim of the business owners.
> Pretty good, eh? Especially for a neoliberal running dog lackey of the capitalist plutocrats like me, eh?
Just one thing: those are *your* words, not mine.
FYI on the Political Compass chart I come in at -0.3 on the Left/ Right scale and -7.75 on the Authoritarian/ Libertarian scale. Which means that whilst I might be "more left-wing than some", I'm certainly not "left wing" according to the usual definitions.
I'd be interested to know where you come out on those scales...
> Globalisation and international trade has done just that, vastly improving the lives of the billions of genuinely poor, at the expense of a few dozen million in the West who have a bit less good of a life. Surely that's a win?
Right! "Be happy that *you're* being fucked over, because at least that's helping out someone else!"
(But whatever you do, don't ask how many millions or billions the people on the top actually need to live on, just ignore the man behind the curtain...)
> Unless you're without these benefits then instead of saying "the ones who can afford to buy shares" or the like, say "me". When you do that, does it sound any different?
I'm sure it does "sound different", if you ignore the people who *don't* have a company or private pension or life insurance, after all, obviously they're not worth bothering about.
But, in any case, you are being incredibly naiive if you think that pension funds and life insurance companies are running their operations simply for the benefit of people who pay into them, because what they are really doing is thinking "ok, what's the bare minimum we can get away with giving out that will keep people paying in to these schemes whilst maximising our profits and bonuses?"
If I buy or sell shares *myself* then, apart from a brokerage fee and any taxes that may be liable, the rest of the money is *mine*. If I pay it into a pension or life insurance fund, that's certainly not the case and that needs to be repeated to people like you until it sinks in.
More importantly, as I already said, it also depends on me or anyone else having enough money to actually afford to take the risk of getting into the share markets *and* being willing to put it away as part of a long-term investment and there are a lot of people for whom this is simply not the case and *these* are the people who are not "getting richer".
> the people who have been getting rich out of globalisation have been the shit poor out there who now get three squares a day and the like.
Oh right! Great! So all the people in the UK who are now out of work and on benefits (let alone being forced to rely on food banks as they get sanctioned by a hypocritical government enforced scheme to somehow force them into jobs that have been "globalised") should be *happy* that there are people elsewhere in the world who now have *their* jobs and are churning out goods so much more cheaply that, if they had any money, they could buy... erm...
Meanwhile I note that you manage to completely ignore and avoid answering my suggestion about paying workers a reasonable living wage which they will then go out and spend which will increase the circulation of money.
Want to have another go and actually address that point, Tim?
You mean the things that give us jobs being shunted to whatever part of the world gives the cheapest employees at the time (and screw the poor buggers who had that work previously)? The things that give us the Minimum Wage instead of a Living Wage? The things that give use Zero Hours contracts? Etc etc etc
Oh, sure, you can say "but look how cheap you're getting your goods, so that makes you better off!" but that rather relies on people enough money to spend on those goods, but, in the mean time, reduces much purchasing to the least expensive option because that's all many people can afford.
Of course *some* people are getting richer, however they're the ones who can afford to buy shares and the ones further up the ladder, but many of them are just saying "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands of off my stack".
So how about this, Tim: Don't tax profits more, just make companies pay their lower level workers a better wage than the bare minimum if there's sufficient profit to allow it. At the same time, stop rewarding those at the top with huge bonuses that will mostly not get spent, so there's the same amount of money, but it's going to those who will actually use it as liquid assets ensuring it goes back into the economy.
A combined Taser and camera?
What could possibly go wrong?!
"Watch the birdie..." Kzzzert!!!
Good job, this is too early for a remake even for Hollywood...
I hope, David, you mean "You may be in a car with someone else driving and suddenly lose your signal".
If not, PUT THE FUCKING PHONE DOWN AND CONCENTRATE ON THE ROAD!!!
... those pesky X-Men!
> Justin Who?
The fact that you corrected the typo of "Justine" unfortunately proves that you *have* (regrettably) heard of him!
More balderdash and a fine selection of Straw Man arguments there too.
I said nothing about profiling or FGM and conflating the two just makes your arguments look even more ridiculous. How exactly would profiling help you investigate FGM? Round up the usual suspects and examine them?? [Facepalm]
> if I'm going to look for criminals, terrorists, serial killers or whoever I'm going to look first at those more inclined to do such things
And end up persecuting people because of their skin colour or religion or any other bias and prejudice that you like. Bravo, Constable Savage!
Furthermore to your furthermore, *WHY* did the Police and other authorities turn a blind eye to those Civil Servants and MPs and the like "in spite of overwhelming evidence"? Was it due to the colour of their skin? No, so please stop being silly and throwing around ridiculous assertions and "Won't Someone Think of the Children!" arguments.
It's as bad and as misguided as the media's constant references to "Pakistani child abuse gangs" in the recent past.
Why are we not hearing references to "British" or "Caucasian" or "Rich" or "Civil Service" child abuse gangs at the moment? Perhaps because those titles just aren't as good for generating knee-jerk responses from readers and viewers.
Do you honestly think that no white, caucasian groups would have members trying to do the same thing if they knew valuable parcels were ending up in the boots of unattended cars??
I would have upvoted you had you not decided to play the Race Card implying only certain "ethnic groups" would do this.
... WHEN are they going to sort things out so we can subscribe to the Digital Version of 2000 AD and get it delivered straight to our Inboxes as soon as it's published instead of having to go to their website and buy each copy individually (which is the online version of going down to the shop and buying it in person)?
PS been reading since Prog 1 and got the complete collection up to #1890 when I went digital :-)
... but I've just been told that a new law has been rushed through making packet counting illegal...
... I SAID: WHAT A SHAME!
NO, NOT TRAIN... SHAME...!!!
"...and invading the privacy of American citizens [and everyone else] is not OK."
... if it's not us doing it...
... get back
I'm all right, Jack, keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit
ORLY? Generalising from your own experiences and behaviour there, TW?
Yes, *some* consumers will "bugger off elsewhere", but a lot more, because they don't know they're being screwed over or find "everything under one roof" to be more convenient or not being willing to accept that they're being screwed over or whatever will not.
In the mean time the verb "to google" has entered the language and the (false) idea that their results are impartial and aimed solely at getting the best results for the consumer gives a powerful drag factor on any change, so they will keep their monopoly for a very long time unless those pesky governments try to ensure that people *really* have a choice.
TW does rather seem to be missing the point, doesn't he?
In other words: "Do what *we* like, or else!"
It's gratifying to see that at least one of El Reg's writers knows the difference between Refuting, Rejecting and Rebutting an argument!
> your right to privacy when using the phone you just stole from me is trumped all day long by my right to have you caught for the robbery and my phone retrieved. It just is.
But this case *isn't* about a phone being stolen, it's about the Police very probably using illegal methods to snoop on phones in the same way that GCHQ and NSA want to snoop on what everyone does online in the hope that, in the massive haystack of data they collect, there may be a needle.
Yes, in certain *specified* situations, the Police have been given exemptions from certain laws, but, for instance, they can only speed when it's an emergency situation and they're using lights and sirens, not any time they just feel like it.
These exemptions, however do not "override" the law, nor do they have the right or the power to decide what the law is or isn't just depending on how inconvenient it may be and I, for one, want it to stay that way because I don't want us to live in a Police State.
Or just rejected?
I see no refutatation in this article, just a statement that "there have been exhaustive investigations which have not found any evidence of systemic problems with the Horizon system", but given the allegation that there is evidence the Post Office "has been withholding from Second Sight", this doesn't contradict the assertion that the Horizon system has faults.
... just how effective the "War on Drugs" is, because people have not and would not switch to other substances to get high and even if they did, we'd just ban them and *that* would make the situation better...
Please, hyperbole much? The BNP or anyone other minority party won't be "ruling the country" but to suggest that some people "SHOULD NOT" be represented simply pisses all over the idea of a representative democracy (even more than FPTP does!) and ends up with the situation in certain parts of the world where only "approved" candidates are allowed to stand.
And if you think that the Lib Dems are the only ones who engaged in "nasty, power-grabbing politics and the dirtiest possible election campaigns", you really need to take a better look at electoral campaigns in the past (Hint: New Labour - New Danger for one)
Promises from [Insert Party Leader's name here]? (oi, stop laughing)
What people are saying is that we want a government which represents how *we* voted, rather than the one that we get with our incredibly broken First Past The Post system.
I invite you to consider the Blair government that got a majority in Parliament despite only getting 34% of the votes. I then invite you to consider what it's like to live in a "safe seat" where Party X can parachute anyone they like in to be your MP knowing that the people there would vote for a donkey with the right coloured rosette on it and if you vote for someone else it's a waste of time. Finally try considering the fact that a lot of the electioneering at the moment has been on the lines of "if you vote for X, you'll get Y..."
It doesn't matter whether it's the Lib Dems, the Greens, the Monster Raving Loony Party or even (gods forbid!) UKIP, the fact is that if 10% of the population vote for them, that 10% should be represented in our Parliament or, if not, we could have the House of Lords elected on that proportional basis.
It is my hope that this election will be the last one which is carried out under a system which only benefits the Tories and Labour whilst ensuring that almost nobody else can get a look in and, instead, we get a Parliament which means that if a Party wants to pass the Snoopers Charter or the Bedroom Tax or any other such piece of nonsense, they'll actually have to *convince* others of the value and validity of such legislation, rather than simply bulldozing it through with a sneer because they have a "majority".
What a wonderful rant! Pity you miss the point entirely.
Consider this: If someone invaded your country (even, or especially, under the guise of "helping" you), tried to tell your countryfolk how to live their lives, elect their leaders (prefereably from their chosen
shills candidates) and generally pissed all over your lifestyles and traditions, what would you do? Would you capitulate or fight back?
The answer to that is pretty obvious, of course, so now consider what would happen if the invaders started trying to kill off anyone who opposed them (with, of course, attendant "collateral damage") using drones to wipe out a whole area of housing just in case there was a terrorist there and having helicopter gunships shoot up people by mistake.
I think that, if that happened, even those who might have had more moderate, even (who knows) those bleeding heart liberals might consider taking up arms to fight off these interlopers etc.
Would you say that that would be a reasonable assessment of what would happen, yes?
SO WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S ANY FUCKING DIFFERENT FOR PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN OR THE MIDDLE EAST OR AFRICA OR ANY FUCKING OTHER PLACE IN THE FUCKING WORLD???
Shooting the shit out of anyone you don't like is NOT going to make the problem any better, it just drives more people into the arms of the militants and terrorists because the people see that as a better option than just capitulating. "They may be bastards, but at least they're *our* bastards"!
"Kill all the people who don't agree with us!" is the cry. But is that them or is that you?
> the real task is to solve the unrest problems in Africa [...] The world would be a better place if groups like the Congolese rebels and Boko Haram were wiped from the earth.
What a *BRILLIANT* solution! Why on earth did nobody think of trying that sort of thing before in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan or...
... oh you know the rest...
Something that *can* run Crysis!
> the tyrannical moral censor that I anticipated has failed to appear
Or has it simply not appeared in an obvious guise?
I fully accept that action needs to be taken against those who commit child abuse and who post such pictures online, but, as Larry F54 says, how many false positives were there?
Given the sort of Moral Panic that surrounds such things, I wouldn't doubt that there have been the equivalents of the album cover or pictures of children in the bath or on the beach which have been caught up in this, all of which have undoubtedly been included in that headline grabbing figure.
> As for the "spoilt vote" idea, unfortunately there's no way to tell the difference between that and stupidity.
"Stupidity" is your word. I used the word "apathy".
There's a difference.
And even if there was a massive no-show (like when Blair got a "majority" with 34% of a 60% turnout) it wouldn't matter, because whoever got in would still declare that they had a mandate to do what they liked.
The only way to get their attention is to either a) spoil your paper or b) vote for a "minor" party (ie not LibLabCon) and demonstrate just how broken our First Past the Post system is.
> what if voting meant filling in a questionnaire covering lots of different (divisive) issues, and the results were mapped to the closest matching party?
As for the "don't vote" idea, unfortunately there's no way to tell the difference between that and apathy. At the very least, show up to spoil your ballot paper to register your protest, otherwise you end up with the nonsense of the Police and Crime Commissioners' election where some got in with less than 15% of the votes.
> If I'm not interesting, why do they want to look at my stuff?
Well obviously the AC agrees with the Police and Security Services that you *might* do something, so it's far better to keep an eye on you "just in case" than risk missing spotting you being a naughty boy!
Oh good grief, do people *still* believe this sort of nonsense?
Dear AC, you stand much more chance of being killed in a traffic accident or even getting out of bed than you do of ever being the victim of a terrorist attack. And we're all *so* glad that you have so little to hide that you are not only willing to forego *your* privacy, but everyone else's too!
Please try to understand that we (mostly) have *no* problem with the Security Services doing their job in a targeted manner, what we object to is them treating *everyone* as a potential suspect and acting as if they have a better chance of finding a needle in a haystack by making the haystack so much bigger.
PS If you "have nothing to hide" why are you posting anonymously...?
... before some NSA/ GCHQ shill proposes a law to make this illegal...?
> You can always use AB+ to kill it.
Yes, I know, I did that for the incredibly stupid and annoying "dancing Jesus" one they came up with a while back, but the point is I shouldn't *need* to if El Reg bothered with making their site user friendly.
And that includes getting rid of the ridiculously massive image at the top of each page which often has virtually no relevance to the story it's referring to...
... It is possible to set .gif images to loop a set number of times eg 5 or 10 rather than just "loop forever".
... God help you!
Better than 10 Moby Dicks...
Not... *rounded* corners...?
We are supposed to vote for someone to represent *us* in Parliament. Unfortunately we usually get someone who will just do what their Party Whips tell them to do :-(