You won't get through many days (or many hours) without relying on some piece of government support.
771 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Re: Wrong end of the crime?
>Wanting to check out the comms of these scumbags is a valid line of investigation
Even if they only had a dumb phone? There is an insidious concept here - that if data exists, it must be available to the authorities - even if it is utterly irrelevant.
You can't prove a negative.
>Specifically, the cops want all the messages, calls, social media passwords, contacts, photos, videos and other data since January
What for? To find out who did it? Or because they just want anything and everything they can lay their hands on?
Where is the judge asking them "what do you expect to find?"
Re: I'm sceptical
>We really are looking for a more profound, systemic explanation of the data than low wages and under-investment.
You've been given a couple (freelancers who can't 'make' more & low wages). Add to this immigration.
Productivity is (roughly) GDP divided by population. We've added a few million to the population (without whom we'd be up shit creek), so that equation doesn't improve much, even though GDP has risen (a bit).
>The government says that figure is set to increase to 2.4 per cent of GDP on projects by 2027 – with most of that figure provided by private sector spending
So - how does government get to make such promises? If the private sector doesn't do it (and they don't have a good record), who's going to make them?
Re: No thank you
> CAD/CAM/CAxE (x is some engineering discipline)
I really doubt whether a $1000 phone is going to be much help with power-hungry CAD, especially over something like Skype.
Re: I run a business that competes
>If wages or conditions are terrible working for Uber, people will leave
Where to? Many of them have committed to the purchase of a snazzy new car. They can go back to working for a local minicab outfit - but that doesn't have much of a future either.
Uber has 'disrupted' their sector. Drivers don't have many options.
Re: Another attack on the free market
>the free market
No such thing.
Re: Welcome to 21st Century USA - How about an unbiased source?
Ah. Let me guess - you want a journal that will tell you the lies that denialists want to hear, yes?
Re: Corporate vs Government
>With the free market (also known as corporate profit interests) in charge we have gone from nothing, to dialup, to broadband.
It was gummint that took us from nothing to dial-up, and set up the internet as we know it. The 'free' market would have strangled it at birth (and, indeed, tried to).
Re: Corporate vs Government
>"I'm with the government and I'm here to help you" is one of the most often repeated lies.
It was a lie when Reagan put it into the mouths of millions of low-paid, conscientious government workers.
For every politician or appointee found with his hand in the till, there are thousands who actually do want to help.
> Not until somebody comes up with a breakthrough
That 'breakthrough' would be when fossil fuel simply isn't a permissable option, or when its price includes the cost of removing the equivalent CO2 (and other pollutants) from the atmosphere.
Just because we've got into the habit of behaving badly, doesn't mean we have a right to.
>They don't seem to understand how hard it is to be a car maker.
To be fair, most of the car makers didn't seem to understand how hard it is.
A much more realistic question; should an autonomous car protect its occupants - at all costs? If not, which costs are acceptable?
Re: Easy I suppose
>The trolley problem: If there is an old lady pushing a shopping trolley, and a cyclist, and you can’t avoid both, which one do you hit?
OK, we're having a bit of giggle, coming up with smartarse answers to this. But there is another side to the story; If we know that cars (in general) are programmed a certain way, then the old lady and the cyclist will know which one of them is in most danger - and needs to get out of the way sharpish, while the other can just pootle along, trusting the AI.
> if my partner stops smoking I'll get it done.
Wouldn't vaseline be easier?
Re: CIS software
>because I had already found WigWam when I first heard of it.
In which case, you may have read my WigWam manual.
>I had a numeric email address, shame I can't remember what it was, now.
Re: First Quantum Link... then Usenet... now...
>Personally, I never used Compuserve, but I do recall seeing the per-hour access cost at some point and thinking.... yeah, nice if you can afford it.
It was possible to use it offline, using WigWam.
Re: UBI == death of all capitalism
>For example, when minimum wage increases, there are nearly immediate raises in the cost of housing.
You have evidence for this assertion, I suppose? Oh. Thought not.
Re: The world owes me a living ... wage.
>Paying people not to work seems an odd thing to do.
<sigh> After umpteen pages of comments, you still haven't understood what we're talking about.
UBI is not "paying people not to work". It's paying people - leaving them free to work for more (or not, if that's enough for them).
Re: Land Value Tax and Citizens Income combined
>How do you stop cheating, though?
It is extraordinarily difficult to move a chunk of land elsewhere. Tax is due - wherever the owner chooses to reside.
Re: A shorter term problem
>You realise that people can throw in the towel right now and be on benefits?
Not really. Getting benefits, these days, can be bloody hard work.
Re: fast forward.
>It was tried.
Was it bollocks. UBI has no similiarity to soviet communism. And those societies had disincentives for advancement, because the elite gobbled up any advances (especially if it didn't fit the party's policy).
Re: fast forward.
>The only fix is a TRUE free market system.
One fantasy at a time, please.
Re: The answer is simple
>Puerto Ricans can't vote in presidential elections.
They can, if they migrate to Florida (over 100,000 already have).
Re: Standards needed
>And I thought, every container stacked here and useless is a vote for Puerto Rican independence.
More immediately, a substantial (six figure) population of Puerto Ricans have already migrated to FLA.
Anyone think they'll vote Republican?
Re: Standards needed
We get it, all right. White supremacists regard Puerto Ricans as a bit dusky to care about. That's why they're being left behind.
>The DoD did not take Donald Trump's tweet on exclusion of transgender individuals from the military personnel pool. That is a significant indication that those in charge of a major executive department do no consider the tweets to be in the category of official action or direction, and hints that maybe they should not be.
Not really. The DoD are just as likely to hold back on any command they don't quite like - whether verbal, twitted or on parchment.
Re: legally entitled to block accounts
>Nope - nothing to stop anyone reading them. All this means is that you don't get automatically notified of them and that's not the same thing at all.
Nothing to stop anyone reading them - except knowing that they exist.
You really aren't thinking this through, are you?
'Blocking' is an impediment.
>something MS Word is doing just right for at least 20 years.
Is it bollocks. Page numbers is just one of many things I have to check, page-by-page, in all the docs I want to publish.
Re: The results will be meaningless
>so the Green priesthood rebranded it
A tired, denialist lie.
Re: Gun Control you say?
>After the Port Arthur Massacre set a new world record for the number of dead, draconian new gun laws were enacted in Australia and a huge number of guns destroyed.
...and the incidence of gun crime plummeted (despite some mythical black market deal).
Gun control works. That's why the NRA are against it.
You aren't remotely sorry.
Re: Re downvote
> can you explain who is going to pay for this treatment
We all are - because we aren't all selfish bastards.
Re: Another wee problemette...
>If I have a naked photo of my wife, and we become "no longer married" and decide to use it in such a way, who has that photo?
If you upload it to t'internet and she sees it there, she now has a copy of it, to send to Zuck.
Fortunately, there is a steady stream of new jobs made available by changing technology.
Unfortunately, those new jobs are seldom available to those put out of work by new technology. It's the next generation that gets them - if they're lucky. 'Skilled' workers are no damn use (and they're too expensive).
>BT was created because the government wasn't prepared to invest the money needed to upgrade the core to fibre.
You've mangled the history rather a lot.
Privatisation was originally mooted to pay for digitalisation (System X), Nothing to do with fibre. Govt feared that BT would have to borrow immense sums, which would appear on govt's books, making them look like spendthrifts.
But the '82 election put off BT privatisation. After the election, Maggie's new govt proposed BT privatisation as an ideological wonder (and a crude bribe to the emerging shareholding classes).
But, by then, BT had already installed System X in 60% of their exchanges, and completed the rollout, funded entirely from revenue.
Like most of them, this privatisation was a botched job, truning a govt monopoly into a private one - which required so many regulations it was hardly worth doing (except for that bribe, of course).
Re: Why must democracy be digitised?
>You trust a system that makes no attempt whatsoever to verify that people walking into a polling station are who they say they are?
Yes. If the alternative is some barrier which excludes some legit voters.
There is very little evidence of personation in elections in this country (in person). The problems come when there's a piece of paper/card which says who you claim to be.
Re: Lessons from Orlowski
The real thing that's wrong here is the assumption that G could easily fix this, if only they could be bothered. OK, then - how?
I'm quite sure G would just love to have some magic wand, which would send fake news to oblivion and promote the Pure Unvarnished Truth to the front page. They would even invest millions into such a solution.
But, even though a human might spot a fake relatively easily, it's a damn sight harder to define the characteristics that define a fake, and weave that into an algorithm.
The author of this article is having a go at Google, because they're Google, not because they're wrong.
Re: The reports so far with some editorial....
>an era when the average citizen could easily own weaponry that was about equivalent to the best military weaponry.
You're right - but it's worth noting that in Revolutionary America, only a small percentage of Americans could afford such weapons. This amendment was crafted by folks who could.
Then you've got the myth of 'the Wild West', where, supposedly, no-one left the house without a sixgun. Of course, reality wasn't at like that. Real cowboys didn't wear guns. There might be a rifle available in emergency, but no mass gun ownership. (Most cowboys were black or Hispanic.)
Indeed, right up to the 1950s, gun ownership in the US was rare (and largely rural). It was the end of WWII, when the arms manufacturers had loads of unsold weapons, that the notion of an armed citizenry began to be pushed. And it just growed and growed...
Re: FBI can't unlock smartphone
>Well the amendment specifically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" which opens up all manner of possibilities/legal wrangling even while leaving that in place.
Indeed. A law which required anyone wanting a gun to sign up to their National Guard (and accept NG discipline) - would satisfy the 2nd amendment fully.
>There has to be a first major trial in a real city somewhere.
And if it phucks up in Phoenix?
Not surprisingly, you are dazzled by the shiny stuff - ignoring the key issue; ownership.
Who says you 'own' anything? The law does. Who creates the law? who enforces it? who amends it when scrotes like Apple take the piss?
Government, that's who.
Re: cut the cost of producing population statistics. - WTF ?
>Gathering new, proxy data to derive population statistics cheaply, checking their quality against the census (and other data sets) is only a good thing.
But, in the end, those proxies will only have value if they can be verified - by the census.
Proxies are useful, but only when you've got fixed, reliable points to relate to. If our only information is from assumptions, based on 3rd-party data (collected for some other, probably-commercial reason), extrapolated across the nation - then we'll know...fuck all.
>They need to take a hard look at their competitors raking in money hand over fist
Like OnDigital, you mean?
The Beeb have been way ahead of the pack in 'demand technology'. If anything, they're suffering from being too far in front.
>Duplicate "leaked" license get blocked.
I have iPlayer on my Kodi box, on two tablets, a mobile phone and a desktop. Which 'duplicate' are you going to kill?
Re: How much better value the BBC catalogue is...
>So they can recommend that the Govt change it.
Way too late for that. The structures that once created programmes in-house are gone (along with national treasures like BBC Engineering). It would take billions to re-create them.
>Can we not just keep it to the facts?
No. because the selection of facts is one of the easiest ways to promote bias. And facts do need explanation - what do they mean? what reactions have they induced? what measures will be required?
A fact-only news organisation is a chimera.