Re: re. Three Cows
Obviously that pic is for anyone who doesn't know what a cow looks like...
6774 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Obviously that pic is for anyone who doesn't know what a cow looks like...
... We are now!
No tin foil hat needed. The evidence is in front of your eyes, just avoid the wool that the Murdoch Media is trying to pull over them because Uncle Rupert is bang alongside the Tories on this.
> Jacking up taxes doesn't help the working man get ahead - it keeps him in debt.
And what do Zero Hours contract and Minimum Wage jobs with no prospect of advancement do for him?
> Overly generous welfare make it ever more difficult for him to teach his children about the benefits of hard work and the application of their abilities.
"Overly generous"? You *really* have to stop believing what you read in the papers! And when the message about hard work is "you work all hours of the day and *still* end up with sod all", something has gone seriously wrong.
As for Labour not living within their means, once again we see the Tories trying to flog off what remains of the family silver in the hope that nobody notices they've pissed all of our money away on tax breaks for their mates, laughing up their sleeves as they piously claim "We're all in this together"!
PS I will again remind you that I have no more love for Labour that the Tories, but at least we might see some options other than the failed nonsense of Right Wing Authoritarianism which we've had for the last 35 years.
> it's "Screw you, I bothered to work hard at school, and subsequently and have a decent career - so why should I have to subsidise you just because you didn't bother?".
I got O Levels, A Levels and graduated from Portsmouth Polytechnic (as was) in Computing. I now run my own business and do quite nicely, making enough money that I don't have to work all hours of the day and night simply to make ends meet.
I have *no* problem with paying taxes that go to support those on Benefits because I have spent a lot of time where they were and it was only that I found out how to (entirely legally) make the system work *for* me, rather than *against* me that let me start my business in the first place.
I understand that the Benefits System is supposed to be a safety net to catch those who are not as fortunate as me, I also know that only 0.7% of Benefits are claimed fraudulently, which is *less* than the amount of benefits which are *not* claimed but which could be.
I have compassion for people less well off than me, I don't treat them as some sort of underclass who should be punished for not being employed.
> How can I make you smarter such that you can get a better job?
Err, just off the top of my head, shoot me down if you want to, but, as a wild idea, how about EDUCATING CHILDREN BETTER instead of letting your rich mates buy up schools and turning them into a for-profit Academys which doesn't work even though they get given 60% more money per pupil that local authority schools and where there have been allegations of fraud!
Oh, but of course, that's not a failure of the schools, is it? As you say "How can I make you educate yourself better?" since clearly it's the pupils' fault for not "educating themselves better"...
> How can I make you work harder?
How about paying people a decent rate for the job they're doing, rather than giving them a pittance. How about rewarding them with bonuses for doing their job well? It seems to work so well for the people at the top of the pile, why not try it for those who are actually *making* the money?
> Yet again we see the attitude of "I'm not successful, wealthy, or happy, so I don't want anyone else to be". Or, to give it the name by which it is best know, socialist spite & envy.
BUZZ! Oops, wrong again. I have no problem with people being successful, wealthy or happy, but, unlike you, I think that society works better when the rewards are spread around, rather than concentrated in the hands of a greedy few who think they're entitled(!) to live off the sweat of others' brows. (Ironic, isn't it? Same words, different meaning...)
> the Conservatives hate the poor enough to want to make them rich
Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
The last thing that the Tories want is for people to have enough money to be able to pick and choose jobs, that's why their aim is to keep sufficient people unemployed (and, if possible, sanctioned), so they have a large supply of obedient serfs who are so desperate for any work that they'll take whatever jobs are on offer for a pittance.
> there will be no North Sea Oil to bail us out this time.
If Maggie had any sense, she would have *invested* the money from North Sea Oil, instead of using it (and flogging off nationalised industries to her rich friends) to bribe people into electing her again.
> Like the majorty of us that can afford to support ourselves without scrounging benefits off the back of others
Let me guess, you're not on a Minimum Wage job, let alone a Zero Hours contract.
Again we see the "Screw you, I'm alright Jack!" attitude.
You know, I *keep* seeing this "Labour is now unelectable" line being trotted out and I have to wonder just *who* is trying to convince *whom*.
Because it seems to me that it is actually coming from the Right Wing (be it the Right of Labour or from the Tories or their supporters and tame media) who are desperately trying to convince *themselves* that people haven't finally wised up to the bullshit which is Austerity and aren't going to kick out its proponents at the next election when they finally get tired of being screwed over whilst their feudal masters sit in their mansions and castles sipping champagne.
They double down on their bets by chucking in claims about how it will all go on floor moppers and letting in the "hordes" on our borders and so on and so forth because, as the old saying has it, if you throw enough mud, at least some of it should stick...
Gosh, I *wonder* which political colours Mr AlbertH has nailed to his mast...
> If anything its likely to lead to a resurgent labour party while people just listen to the sound bites and ignore the polices
Wow! That's *so* different from what's happening with the Tories now...
> The last budget was a great example of moderate conservatism
Are you serious? It was a great example of how to fuck over the ordinary people whilst convincing them that it was actually an improvement for them!
Telling people that the Tories are bringing in the Living Wage was really clever, trouble is, it's total bullshit. Not only will that not happen until 2020, by the time we get to 2020, it will *still* be below the London Living Wage *today*! And, at the same time, he's slashing tax credits and in work meaning people will end up worse off.
In other news: Big Brother has raised the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week...
> How about posting something that actually addresses the accusations made?
Great idea, DaveDaveDave: You start...
You mean like the Blue Tories, the Purple Tories, the Red austerity-lite Tories or the Yellow idiots who sold their souls for a sniff of power and were comprehensively shafted by the Tories?
Try visiting the Political Compass site and see how *all* of the "major" UK Parties are in the Right-wing Authoritarian corner.
I have no love for Labour and have no intention of voting for them, but after 35 years of Tory-ism (yes, that even includes Blair) it's good to see that we might *finally* get some balance back in UK politics, rather than "Let the Rich get richer, I'm alright Jack, screw the little people".
> What are the laws of the land?
Probably the same as in the Good Ol' US of A: If you're doing it, it's bad. If we're doing it, that's ok...
Is anything going to prevent Lewis Page from indulging his favourite activity ?
Don't think so.
"... which we will then ignore in favour of whichever industry lobbying group has offered us the most..."
Whilst Revenge Porn is a contemptible thing, as usual we see the default reaction of the politicians "Something Must Be Done!" so they pass a stupid law which will end up criminalising innocent people or being used for "Revenge Revenge Porn" charges when someone agrees to let their partner post pics of them, but when it comes to a divorce or custody battle, somehow they didn't consent after all.
Far better to teach people (and especially kids, given the new habit of sexting) that once a picture is out there is cannot be withdrawn, so make *really* sure that you actually want to have that picture taken in the first place and if someone tries to coerce you to do it, tell them to get lost until they grow up a bit.
PS I saw a lovely pic a little while ago that went:
1980s: Here's a mix tape of your favourite music I made for you
2000s: Here's a mix CD of your favourite music I made for you
2015: Here's a picture of my dick!
... but nobody was responsible and nobody's been punished.
However Lessons Have Been Learned...
... Ug is working on developing the iSpear which looks really great with its rounded corners, but if it breaks, you can't fix it yourself.
McCoy wasn't the worst, he was just saddled with the worst assistant, Bonnie Langford. He actually got some very good (and very dark) storylines, but with lousy scripts.
It was a shame The Happiness Patrol was spoiled by the ridiculous Bertie Bassett-alike when there were nice references to the Paranoia RPG in it :-(
Nice library you have here, buddy. Be a real shame if anything happened to it...
"...using the Disk Cleanup utility".
Ironicly, to see the video on how to remove the unwanted files, you have to install the unwanted Silverlight...
... how "Prosperity" comes above "Personal Information"...
... funny handshakes all round...
> Autonomous mobile homes!
Prior art (quite literally!): The Mopads in Mega City One, as featured in the Judge Dredd strips in 2000 AD
... is that "row" to rhyme with "now"...
... or "row" to rhyme with "no"?!
... they're not charging $100,000 for the domain suffix!
Apropos of the Hero Image:
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
Croupier: Your winnings, Sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
... he was just carrying it wrong!
Hmm, one to remember if any El Reg reader is nicked for a similar crime...
"Oh Aggers do stop it!" - The late and much missed Johnners
> Avoiding tax is legal, simply doing what is allowed by law.
Yes, I am aware of that. And, to counter your Straw Man, I run my own business and my accountants will do whatever they can to legally reduce my tax liability. BUT when you the system is rigged such that big business doesn't just do that, but can get away with paying a *fraction* of the percentage of tax that my business does, something has gone seriously wrong.
And probably the actual loss was really £12...!
I was going to upvote you right until I read your last paragraph.
Despite what you might read in the Daily Mail et al, Benefit Fraud accounts for just 0.7% of the total welfare spending in this country and is actually *lower* than the amount that would be paid if everyone claimed everything they were entitled to.
Meanwhile, of course, big business is getting away with *massive* tax avoidance thanks to their mates in government and we're *all* getting screwed by that.
> what BT an other carriers *could* do is give you the option to block ALL 'international' and/or withheld numbers. They *can* do this - their equipment has that capability, but they *don't* because doing so costs them money
Interesting, I didn't know that, which is why I've always resisted implementing Anonymous Call Blocking on my phone because I would have to pay for it.
I may rethink this now.
I think when then said "can't", what they meant was "can't be bothered to".
Could someone help me get Mr I ain't Spartacus down off the table and relieve him of that bottle...
" – the robots were flown on the microgravity research aircraft, NASA's C-9 (the “vomit comet”) – here it is."
Err, no it isn't. That goes to a video of the possibility of life on Europa (although no black monoliths were involved)
Actually mine is neither a rebuttal, nor a refutation. It's simply the case that, as with other Authors and Commenters on El Reg, when I see someone playing silly buggers in this way, I'm going to point out exactly what they're up to.
For all I know Merchant may actually be correct (I can't be bothered to waste time searching out sources to check his claim), but if he is, and his argument is so good, why does he need to use these tactics which are so often employed by those who are trying to cover up the weakness of their position?
> A comprehensive rebuttal
Really? A quick look at his other writing clearly puts Minhaz Merchant over on the political Right for a start, so he's not exactly unbiased.
All through his "rebuttal" are various linguistic sneers, starting in the very first paragraph "It's not difficult to pin down the motive" implying there's something underhand going on, or "Others are filled with empty rhetoric" and "Are these Left-leaning "liberals" - the phrase may be oxymoronic" and "they would risk collateral damage to India just to discredit this particular prime minister?"
He's already planting seeds in the mind of the reader attacking the authors and attempting to devalue their opinions before he even addresses them, a classic debating tactic called Poisoning the Well
He then dismisses their opinions with a hand wave, saying they don't matter: Fortunately, the answer to these questions is that it doesn't matter. America's technology czars are used to receiving open letters or petitions in their inboxes. They have a well-developed antenna for sniffing out those which are motivated and those which are not. The trash bin is the destination for most.
Once he's got that out of the way, he takes a bit of time to big himself up I co-founded and edited a magazine for US CEOs called Innovate. It was written, researched, edited and produced in India and shipped to the US. From there our Boston-based partner couriered copies to America's top CEOs again, telling the reader that *he* is the one who knows what he's talking about.
He finally gets to the point, but not before a couple more last digs: the tone and content of the open letter aimed at smearing the prime minister ahead of his visit to Silicon Valley smacks of both nastiness and pettiness. It deserves to be ignored - but not before it's comprehensively rebutted. and the principal points the five-paragraph open letter tries to establish: ("Tries" to establish, clever...)
Even when he gets to talking about what they've written, he keeps adding more drops of poison to the well referring to "liberal arts academics" (a phrase that always plays well to the Right), "intellectual shallowness", "It rambles on and makes no arguments worthy of serious attention", "language here borders on arrogance",
Other language he uses includes "verbose, poorly written", "slyly", "venemous", "pathological"
Also he goes for a lovely Ad Hominem Tu Quoque with "the US government's digital surveillance is far more intrusive than Digital India's is likely to be. And the latter is still open to discussion and change. America's isn't - a point the US-based academics aren't brave enough to make" in other words because "your government is doing it, and you haven't criticised it here, you can't complain about what we're doing". Note that Merchant *doesn't* actually criticise the idea of widespread digital surveillance...
Finally he gets in a great Straw Man: It tells the CEOs of America's top technology companies that the Modi government should in effect be regarded as untouchable because it has demonstrated a "disregard for human rights and civil liberties" and In order to discredit this prime minister, the (mostly) Indian-origin, US-based academics are prepared to discredit India.
Frankly, if his "factual rebuttal" (see, I can do it too) is so good, why does he need to spend so much time using Ad Hominem attacks, playing the man (well, men and women) rather than the ball and misrepresenting what they've said?
He concludes: As I said at the beginning of this piece, some open letters and petitions end up exposing their intolerant, illiberal and ill-informed petitioners more than their target. This open letter does precisely that.
Pots and kettles come to mind...
> are you asking for new functionality that locks the camera unless explicitly enabled?
I'm saying that that should be the *default* setting for any app. Followed by, as you say, "This app wants to access your camera, do you want to allow it?" to give you the chance to say "hang on, why does a photo slide show viewer want to take pictures right now?"
It's a ridiculous short-coming in security!
A user shouldn't have to "ignore the blatant red flag that says "this app requires access to your camera",", they should be able to say "I don't want ANY apps to have access to MY camera unless *I* say they can!"
The default should be opt IN, not "you can only opt-OUT by not installing the app in the first place".
Me too, although at the moment I'm reading God Awful of Dune...
I just clicked on the link in that article and got an almost full page pic of an office full of those robots!
"...to know and understand that information from their medical records will continue to be kept safe, secure and confidential"
In other news, Satan has just been seen ice-skating to work.
But then they went back just to check that nothing had changed since they left...
... will barely even get you to the start line...
When all was said and done, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the two major party candidates for president in 2012, spent close to $1.12 billion -- not counting the millions more spent by the parties and outside groups. Overall, the presidential race cost more than $2.6 billion in that cycle.
> When is El Reg going to put ads inside the article texts?
That's not what we should be worrying about.
What we really should be Download our new App for all your Computer Needs! worried about is when we get ads in the comments.