Re: Wonder what the grip feels like
I offer you the cautionary tale of Howard Wolowitz...
6821 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
I offer you the cautionary tale of Howard Wolowitz...
I don't know about you, but I would be more worried about the OS owner being able to control what apps can or can't run on *MY* phone.
Sure, they can *tell* me that such and such an app has a vulnerability, but if they can stop a "bad" app from running, it's not a big step to stopping a good app for political or "security" purposes...
It's a well known* fact that, aerodynamically, bees cannot fly, so obviously this is to find out why they're crashing...
* Yes, I *know* it's a myth!
> It may be you have more than enough put away to get by on the dividends and state pension or other income,
In which case you've probably got other pension provision than a basic 401k. Most people won't.
If your pension plan doesn't move into defensive (ie low volatity) areas around 5 years before you're due to retire you either made a bad choice or got bad advice.
Yes, Free to agree with what *we* say is acceptable...
> How about we make that network neutral, by removing all rules for right of way, so that all road users are treated equally all the time.
You miss the point.
Imagine you're on a three lane Motorway and find that Lane 3 has been bought by the Ford Motor Company
That Lane has a 100mph speed limit but can *only* be used by people driving Ford Cars.
Meanwhile Lanes 1 and 2 have to take all the other traffic and have had their speed limits reduced to 60mph and even then you'll be lucky if you can do that because you've got "crawler races" with one HGV is trying to overtake another at 1mph faster.
*THAT* is what Net Neutrality is about, minus all the petty sneers about Arts Graduates and other such BS.
> If you take a view about what price content rights-holders must sell for
You miss the point. It is not about what price they must sell it for, it's that they can (and do) charge different prices based simply on which side of an arbitrary (and imaginary) line someone lives on.
Imagine you went into a shop to buy an item and they said "Sorry, you live in XYZ area, you can't buy from us at this cheaper price, you have to go to our shop nearest to you and pay a more expensive price". Would you say "Ok, that's fine"?
I doubt it, but that's what these companies want to have enshrined in law.
... very probably originated in the Black Forest in Germany.
Blame Orson Wells and The Third Man for spreading the Swiss origin myth.
1) Make sure you've spent enough on wining and dining MPs and Civil Servants
2) Make sure you've offered enough Directorships which pay six figures for 24 hours work a year
3) Offer the moon on a stick whilst claiming it will only cost peanuts
4) Get your people to write a nicely vague contract with ambiguous terms that give you lots of get out clauses and golden lifeboats when you fail to deliver what you've promised
So what you're saying is that because people don't fit in with *your* ideas of how they should organise their relationships, they deserve to have their privacy invaded and have society pile opprobium on them?
What a wonderfully tolerant person you are.
John Lewis is a Partnership (hence the full name). All employees are *partners* in the business, hence they get a share of the money, unlike many (most?) capitalistic businesses where any profit dividend is only distributed to share holders, not the workers.
> JL and Co Op are owned by, respectively, the workers and the consumers. They're not capitalist organisations.
True. They have this crazy idea of giving money *back* to the people who make it for them and keeping prices down for people who pay for their goods instead of keeping it all for those at the top of the tree or giving it to shareholders whilst keeping wages as low as possible!
Lunatics, eh? Such a business model would never survive since 1844, would it?
> This needs at least two terms to clear up the mess, trying to get rid of the crap,
I think you mean flogging off the family silver to their rich mates (and give them tax breaks) whilst meanwhile screwing the workers and get them fighting amongst themselves and then retiring with lucrative directorships.
Trebles all round!
> . I don't find any of Tim's articles abusive in any way. This one is not either
In which case, why does Tim spend so much time in it debating the *man* rather than his arguments?
I suggest you look up the term "ad hominem".
... try to read this piece, but get deafened by the sounds of Axes grinding?
Don't forget, in America you have the right to keep and arm bears...
> As far as I can tell, My Corbyn is exactly like anyone else on the Left, which is to say, all talk no trousers. When it comes down to it, there's never any detail as to how exactly all this will come about.
And yet we have the neo-liberal Right still claiming that they can cut their way to prosperity and make everyone "on average" better off by concentrating all the wealth in the hands of a few, whilst everyone else gets screwed.
Oh and, as someone said "As a member of the electorate, it is not up to me to make suggestions as to what he will do, but up to me to decide whether his policies are sound."
> Now tell the middle-England majority who pay for all these benefits that they should care that a small number of people are worse off because these benefits have been cut.
As opposed to them saying "Fuck you, I'm alright Jack!"?
> You mean like this?
So there already *is* what you want?
So what exactly do you want him to say he's going to do which is different???
> To go after a multinational company you need a multinational attack.
So because you "heard him say that he would gather international support to change tax agreements" means he's not going to do it? Or maybe you haven't looked very hard.
From a recent speech he made, two policies on tax he wants to introduce:
"The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law.
"The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations"
I think "country-by-country reporting" sounds like he's doing exactly what you say.
> "on average" people are better off under the budget
Which is about as meaningful as saying that "on average nobody has two legs" because there are people who have fewer than two.
Telling people who are working in Minimum Wage jobs or on Zero Hours contracts that they should be happy because, "on average" people are better off, whilst they're living virtually hand to mouth with little money for luxuries, let alone to be able to save for a mortgage etc is not going to wash.
Still, as Douglas Adams said "Nobody was poor, at least nobody worth speaking of."
"Just where is this great economic boom for Great Britain with a Right-wing, neo-liberal austerity loving chancellor like George Osborne going to come from instead of concentrating the majority of the wealth in the off-shore bank accounts of a small minority?
"It all goes very quiet at that point."
(PS I'll say again that I have no more love for Labour or Corbyn than I do for the Tories and Cameron or the Lib Dems and... err, whoever, but until we have a bigger choice of people to vote for than the Blue Tories, the Red Tories or the Purple Tories or the Yellow idiots who got shafted by the Tories, then nothing is going to improve.)
"requested proof" != "proof that Matt Bryant will accept"
Taxi! Follow those goalposts...!
> Or do you subscribe to the notion that if you don;t have to bring in the insurers no harm done?
Ah, but you see Matt wants you *personally* to prove to *his* standards that you have suffered "harm" from this and, if you can't, he can declare victory!
It seems he's finally found a set of goalposts he likes...
... I have no doubt that you would find a significant number of Americans who were in favour of burning witches...
> Please go do some actual reading
Certainly. From the article *YOU* linked to...
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991
How many bladders and bowels do you think all the water in the world has been through in the last four billion years or so?
What a pathetic article.
> By default AirDrop is restricted to "contacts only" to but this is changed to "everyone" as soon as a user accepts a message from a previously unknown contact. From that point on users run the risk of being sent all sorts of undesirable content by strangers.
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." - Terry Pratchett
> how do you farm sharks?
I'm not sure. Wouldn't the plough sink?
Which part of "farmed" didn't you understand?
"...from people on Twitter without checking it with reputable sources!"
So is that the Orion is going further or it's going to *take* humans further than Lunar orbit?
> A standard part of a middle class British lifestyle in the 1960s would be ice forming on the inside of the bedroom window overnight
Or, indeed, living in a bedsit in the 1990s (and probably even today in some places...)
"...of using its technology to aid the Chinese government in spying on its international rivals."
How dare they! Don't they know it's only the US who are allowed to do that?!
No, it's a farce!
Thank you for that post.
Of course the fact is that, just with groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous etc, there are ways of helping people come to terms with their desires and control them with the support of others, but, regrettably, they come up against the twin problems of the NIMBYs who would say "well, yes, I suppose these people should be able to get treatment, but not anywhere within 100 miles of a child" and the Tabloid Media, who would take great delight in "outing" any such organisation and broadcasting its location and membership to every witch-burner and vigilante out there.
"Nasty, horrific, criminal stuff."
Samantha Fox and other models like her posed for photographs when they were 16. This was perfectly legal and above board with no exploitation, nothing horrific and no criminality.
Then, some years ago, the Government of The Vicar of St Albions decided that this sort of thing wasn't acceptable to their prudish moralistic standards and decided to redefine "child" from "someone under 16" to "someone under 18".
So now such images are classed as "child pornography" or, if you prefer "abuse".
Of course our witch-burning tabloids were delighted that images of someone who is over the legal age of consent for sexual activity were now criminalised...
ITYM we should have to *opt in* to even be able to have such things happen on *our* phones...
"Do you want sites you visit with your mobile to be able to direct charges to your phone bill? [Y/N]"
"Pay or conditions a bit over market average will enable you to pick and choose who you employ [...] It's relative wages that count there"
In other words "Be happy you're getting a bit more money than those other poor bastards and don't rock the boat, otherwise you could be back at the bottom of the pile."
Meanwhile it's trebles all round in the board room...
*cough* Cui Bono? *cough*
"The first ERNIE was built at the Post Office Research Station by a team led by Sidney Broadhurst.The designers were Tommy Flowers and Harry Fensom and it is based on Colossus, the world's first digital computer. It was introduced in 1957, and generated bond numbers based on the signal noise created by neon tubes."
"ERNIE 4 uses thermal noise in transistors as its source of entropy for generating true random numbers; the original ERNIE used a gas neon diode. Pseudorandom numbers, often called simply random, can be recreated by anybody who knows the algorithm used to generate them as they are produced in a deterministic way; true random numbers can not. The randomness of ERNIE's numbers derives from random statistical fluctuations in the physical processes involved. ERNIE's output is independently tested each month by an actuary appointed by the government, and the draw is only valid if it is statistically random."
"...costs £360 (US$560) and provides a further 15 working days for the formal appeal. The formal appeal costs £3600 (US$5,600)."
Ah, "How much Justice can you afford?"
"...but is very probably not going to happen because National
Surveillance Security is so much more important that Civil Liberties and Freedom of Expression."
Which, surely, has benefits too...
"I arrest you for the crime of..."
"... you can't arrest me, I'm dead!"
"Ok, then we'll bury you."
"Nope, you can't do that either because a Doctor can't declare Life Extinct as there's no medical cause of death."
Dave Langford's version...
1) A robot will not harm authorized Government personnel but will terminate intruders with extreme prejudice.
2) A robot will obey the orders of authorized personnel except where such orders conflict with the Third Law.
3) A robot will guard its own existence with lethal antipersonnel weaponry, because a robot is bloody expensive.