Coached Purging of Demons?
No. Continuous priestly development.
6422 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Coached Purging of Demons?
No. Continuous priestly development.
Oooh. How bona to vada your dolly old eek!
Would that be the Diet of Worms?
I thought most people now had all-you-can eat SMS on their deals. Or often they limit you to something ludicrous like 3,000 per month - to stop you running marketing on consumer tariffs.
But you do have to pay for MMS still. And that's a standard that's pretty much died. Half the handsets never seemed to implement the standard properly anyway, £1 a go is insane and so it was another reason to use Whatsapp. Plus lots of people are chatting to more than one person at once.
I had to get Whatsapp as there's a family group. Which is really useful to organise events and is also full of cat, dog and baby pictures. Which is actually the lesser of two evils, as it means I don't have to go on Facebook for all that.
In the US, the Supremes have decided it's ok for your employer to look at anything on your work or personal or home computers.
Since when did Dianna Ross get to decide HR policy?
France does have higher productivity than the UK. But at the price of having had double digit unemployment for most of the last 30 years.
Does SNCF not have an official porn supplier? Honest guv, I was just testing it!
Surely the 1st class passengers should have acces to the finest flicks de grumble?
Ah, the good old have-your-cake-and-eat-it argument.
That copyright material is worthless. It's shit. Nobody would pay for it.
Right, now I'll go to the effort of downloading and watching it. I enjoyed that. But of course it was still shit, and worthless and nobody would pay for it.
Obviously in this particular case you might be unwilling to pay. But what about the missus? If put to the choice of not pay and do without, or pay and have.
Creating content costs money. The big budget US dramas cost about $5m per hour to produce.
There are murderers who serve less time.
It's pretty unusual to get 2 years for murder...
I seem to remember one of the condom companies did a promotion once, where they sent out a card with marketing blurb, with a condom stapled to it. Oops.
Think it was Virgin, back in the 90s, but a quick Google has failed me. Probably due to the keywords involved...
I loved the Motorola V3 (silver). Then I got the V3i on my next contract, in metalic aubergine (nice!).
Of course it was a great phone. Although the software was rubbish, compared to my previous green screen Nokias.
One of our office PCs is an Asus. It's the usual black metal tower, with a shiny plastic cap on the top. Where the shiny plastic top meets the metal is a small plastic piece of trim that goes all the way round the computer.
A small part of this plastic trim is the on switch. It's been marked by slightly etching a power symbol on it. which is fucking invisble because it's a bit of black writing on a black switch on a black background in the blackness under a desk.
Who's stupid fucking idea was that!?!? Hotblack Desiato.
Back in the days of my youth, I were a good churchgoer. Rather than the heathen I currently am...
Church has been rebuilt. And now has a baptistry. A rather nice mini swimming pool which is filled from a couple of cascading pools - which serve nicely as fonts. So you can still flick a bit of water at baby, or stand up to your chest in water and give someone a proper dunking.
Curate: "I need to hold a microphone when I'm baptising so-and-so."
Me: "Nope. You'll be wet, that's wired to the mains. Water and electricity are not friends." [I didn't mention it's only 48 volts]
Curate: "Can I wear a radio mic instead?"
Me: "That radio mic cost £1,500. We can get more curates, we'll never get the budget for another mic."
That probably dates me, you can probably pick up a really good radio mic for £100 nowadays. Curates are much harder come by...
I suppose to him a radio mic is just a box you put in your back pocket wired to a thing you clip on your tie. Whereas to me, a radio mic is a horribly unreliable thing - where you need a back-up wired mic somewhere for when it craps out mid-sentence, and a spare 9v battery so you can run on stage and get it working again. If some bugger hasn't accidentally changed the channel on it. They're a lot better nowadays.
The point is that Google have a system to game.
Proper media organisations have people and editors. And they also make mistakes of course, but not really crassly stupid ones like computers make.
Back in the day Google talked like "techno-utopians". Computers can solve all problems. Hooray for computers. We shall make computers do cool stuff. And they've done some of that.
But sometimes that kind of talk seems like a way of saying, "we don't want the expense of paying actual staff. We don't want to take responsibility for what we do."
Google made over $16 billion profits in 2016. If they want to have trending lists and recommend videos to customers in order to get them to keep watching (using autoplay so they start as soon as the video you chose to watch finishes), then they're making editorial decisions. If they can't do that responsibly with computers alone, then they aren't behaving responsibly. And they need to be punished.
If the BBC repeatedly broadcast this kind of shit, kept making the same bloody mistakes and did nothing to fix it, they'd be in serious trouble. And so should Google be.
There is no excuse. They need to do better. Or stop doing it.
Google not caring, so long as the advertising money still rolls in...
I don't care whose bots did it. Or if it was just an organised campaign by real users. People have a right to make lies up about other people online. Which is a shame, but the alternative is worse.
On the other hand, I do have an issue with Google making profits off the back of some scumbags attacking a kid who's just survived a school shooting.
And I'm extremely happy to use this as a stick to beat Google with, until they take responsibility for their own fucking actions.
You're wrong! Donald Trump looks AMAZING in flares.
His loonpants are YUGE - and he's gonna Make Flares Great Again!
I also downvoted you and the OP. Because I'm sick of people making excuses for Google.
Last year, Google turned over $109.65 billion. Of which about 90% is from advertising.
They made $16 billion-odd profit.
If people argued that Google can't be responsible for every site they link to, and everything posted on Youtube - then that would be fine. But to argue that Google aren't responsible for the content they choose to promote is ludicrous. Sure they say that an algorithm did it. But they wrote the fucking algorithm. You may be able to get away with telling journalists and politicians that "it was done by the algorithm, not us, honest!" But that crap doesn't wash here - because we know what an algorithm is.
Also, I remember when Google told everyone that all their search was done by algorithms, so they couldn't delete specific search results. Only to later admit that they did hand-weight some search results. Their competitors. Oops.
And I remember when they told the independent record labels that they had a choice with Youtube. Accept a derisory tiny cut of the advertising fee shown on your stuff that gets uploaded, or fuck you, we're turning off the anti-piracy controls that put ads on your stuff and give us most of the cash. That's not behaving like a common carrier. That's behaving like a gangster running a protection racket. Which is what Youtube is, so far as I'm concerned.
What Google need is a few more regulatory kicks to the bollocks, until they learn to be good citizens.
Isn't that what they did to the independent record labels?
Option 1: We pay you the square root of fuck all (even less than the majors get). That means we enable our anti-piracy tools that put ads on pirated material but siphon some cash to you - but of course we keep the lions share of said cash.
Option 2: We de-monetize your official videos. We also turn off our anti-piracy tools - so you have to track down every individual case of your copyright material being put up. And of course we keep all the ad revenue from said pirated material.
Ah - good old Google. Do
n't be Evil.
Take a deep breath, grab a cup of tea and sit down to go through numbers. Yes, it is boring, but sometimes very instructive.
OK. Where are these numbers? I'm presuming you've done them - as your post concludes that the thing isn't workable?
Had a quick look at the wiki article on this, which appears to have had a lot of input by SpaceX. They're talking satellites of 100-500kg. Small enough to piggyback a couple on other launches. Even if we assume nearer the top 500kg weight, that means a Falcon 9 might lift 50-odd. Falcon Heavy being able to do 3 times that.
BFR being able to lift 6 times that at 150 tonnes to LEO. And be re-usable of course.
OK we have to also factor physical size into this. And how you deploy the damned things in multiples of 10. It also matters what size the constellation has to be to become viable. If you need 5,000 up before you can sell to the first customer, then you're in trouble. But if you can deploy say 500 and go operational then you can test the system and start getting revenue. So long as you don't sign up more customers than you have bandwidth. Say you could get 400 up in 5 launches that you pay for (on re-used rockets that are therefore essentially free), and another 100 piggybacking on the 20-30 launches a year SpaceX do for paying customers. Those 4 launches are going to cost you money, but we're talking a few millions to SpaceX - rather than half a billion to a customer - though there's the opportunity cost of what they could sell those rockets for...
Now let's look at revenue. 10m US customers, paying $600 per year ($50 a month) = $6 billion per year. And as they're not in geosynchronous orbit, they get global coverage out of this network, so can make money elsewhere.
Your infrastructure costs are incredibly cheap. Because you don't have vast numbers of engineers and a huge network and property to maintain. You just build loads of disposable-ish satellites - and they can be relatively cheap because you're mass producing them and they don't need to be engineered to last stupidly long.
Is this viable? I've no idea. I'd have thought that 500 medium sized satellites would be better than 12,000 smaller ones. There's going to be global objections to launching a constellation that huge, covering that much of the sky. But I'm sure it's possible to make the numbers add up. And I'd imagine that SpaceX probably won't struggle to raise money for any reasonable idea they can come up with, given their past successes.
If they're small, and cheap, enough - SpaceX might chuck 10 or so on every single launch that's not up to max weight. If you're producing them in those stupid numbers, it probably works out cheaper to build more than it does to make the, last longer. At least, if you happen to own a rocket company...
I think he said the fuel for a Falcon IX launch, is only $300,000. So once you've re-used a rocket a few times, and it's paid for itself and is perhaps reaching end of life, you might get a few more cheap uses out of it.
You need to immediately chop one of your own legs off, and have sex with a man. Though I think probably not simultaneously.
This will reduce your privilege sufficiently that decent people might consider talking to you. Maybe.
You could of course reduce your privilege even further, by "blacking up". However, only if you don't get caught...
Don't be silly. The forum Mods are in the pub. It's nearly Friday you know!
Sorry, but the problem being highlighted is the politics of the workplace.
If ALL staff in a company left all their biases at home then there wouldn't be a problem. But people don't just switch off bias like that, so all companies need to Police the views of everyone in the workplace.
Now there's a recipe for a nightmarish dystopian future!
No! Companies should not police the views of everyone in the workplace. Firstly it's a recipe for trouble, feuds, timewasting and probably bullying. As has happened here.
Companies should police their employees' actions.
There's also a place for training and persuasion, in order to overcome bias. And robust policies, with proper oversight, to question when people are failing to promote a diverse range of candidates. Which also means someone also needs to be measuring how well the company is doing.
It does look like Google employees have a lot of time on their hands
It's a shame they don't spend some of it on sorting their Youtube system out. I know it's asking too much that they pay artists a fair amount (after all that is by design. But they could avoid promoting fake news videos about children who've been involved in a high school shooting and accusing them of being actors - for an example...
How was any of this forced on Google. How many companies have you worked for that have an internal social network with active discussion groups on politics and social policy? Including allowing (or possibly even encouraging) discussion on the company's own HR policy?
Were I running a company I might well have an internal message system / wiki / social thingamijig. But it would definitely be limited, and moderated. I might allow fun discussions on sport (if I were feeling brave), but no way in hell would I allow political discussion. That way madness lies.
the fact that Google allowed this, and then managed it so pisspoorly is nobody's fault but Google management.
America doesn't need Venezuelan oil. The US is pretty close to being an oil exporter nowadays. They're also building LNG export terminals. Fracking has changed the oil and gas industry a huge amount. At least in the short to medium term.
Their economy being dependent on oil is a problem. The drop in prices hurt, because they import a lot and because they have a lot of debt owed to foreigners. But the government has also actively damaged other business sectors - by forced nationalisations (often without compensation) or
stealing confiscating their stock - supposedly for breaches of the prices policy, but those goods never seem to make it to public auction.
They also pissed a lot of that oil revenue away. On schemes like subsidies to Cuba. And do you remember that weird scheme where Chavez was selling subsidised diesel to Transport for London - after some weird deal with Ken Livingstone. Turns out it's better him making unwise comments about Hitler, than siphoning much-needed money away from Venezuala.
There are a couple of other points about sanctions. Obviously they don't always work, and if they do they take ages.
But create a cost for behaving in a certain ways. So those cost may persuade a government not to try certain things, because they know what will happen.
If a government is determined to ignore them at least you know you've weakened them. Sometimes they may actually strengthen a dicatorship politically (making foreign enemies can be useful), but they'll be weaker economically and militarily.
South Korea's defence budget is now bigger than North Korea's entire GDP - even though the South only spend about 3% of GDP on defence.
Sanctions worked on the Iran nuclear deal. At least so far as we know - obviously they've been caught in the past breaking their committments to the IAEA - and hiding entire nuclear installations.
It may have taken over a decade, but we went from a situation of Iran developing a nuclear device with Israel (and maybe the US?) set to bomb them if they looked like getting close. Israel having already bombed the Syrian and Iraqi nuclear programs... To a situation where we now have a deal that they won't. Without creating even more chaos in the Middle East than there already is.
Sanctions may have worked to deter Putin from even more intervention in Ukraine. They certainly brought him to the negotiating table, though those agreements weren't kept. But there don't appear to be whole Russian military units intervening in battles in Ukraine now, even though I'm sure the special forces are still there.
Sanctions had an effect in South Africa. Not sure how strong.
They also may not have deterred Saddam's Iraq in the 90s, but they certainly stopped him from re-arming. Which he'd have done if he'd been getting the oil money still.
Myanmar have liberalised (at least somewhat) in exchange for removing sanctions. Though that policy is looking like a failure now - but they have a civilian government, which is an improvement - it's just not in control of the army.
I don't think the US sanctions are all that important. Venezuala's problems are much more about the hideous mismanagement of the state oil company. Then they ramped up the price controls. They tried fixing the price of imported goods, which made it uneconomic to sell them, so they were no longer imported. Kicking off inflation. Hence the nation shortages of things like toilet roll. And it's not like they weren't running the economy badly enough before that.
Hyperinflation has historically been quite easy to stop. As soon as people are convinced that the government is even vaguely competent and determined to stop it, hyperinflation stops. That might not even require Maduro to resign - he'd just have to publicly admit "mistakes have been made" and bring in a new economic team.
Getting inflation into single figures (or even low double figures) is much much harder mind. But economies can cope relatively well with 20% inflation.
I hope this is a cunning wheeze by the Venezualan government. As they do at least spend some of their money on social programs - so when all those foreigners inevitably find they've lost their money, that which the government haven't stolen, will go to good use.
But I suspect what's much more likely is someone has approached them with the idea, and whoever's running the scheme will end up stealing most of the money before Maduro's lot can.
Have they tried adding vinegar?
Hmmm. The 62 Group?
A quick check online gives The 62 Group as an artist-led international cooperative of textile artists. I'm guessing you don't mean them.
Wikipedia mentions a British militant anti-fascist group formed in 1962 for a bit of a rumble with the National Front. But I'm guessing it's not them either.
Even the New World Order or the Illuminati turn up on internet searches...
I think there can be a difference between fake news and lies. Lies are easy to spot. You can often easily find the facts to counter them.
Fake news sometimes uses all factual information, but just misses out the context. Also as used by the Russian government it seems to be about sowing doubt and discord, rather than promoting anything. They're not trying to persuade people that Russia is great. They're trying to persuade people that everywhere else is equally shit.
I'd say the Daily Mail's approach to diet and health is pretty close to fake news. They're playing for a reaction from their readers to get more readers / clicks. The Mail is a carefully crafted product designed to keep its readers outraged and engaged. And they've suffered least from the press circulation apocalypse over the last 20 years. To be fair they also do some proper campaigning journalism sometimes.
I also think the Guardian's coverage of Brexit has got pretty close too. Although I suspect it's more out of passion than cynicism. 2 or 3 times a week there's an opinion piece about how the referendum should be overturned because reasons + Brexiteers are all stupid. That garners many clicks and comments. Ramps up the outrage. If there's bad economic news: Brexit!!!! If there's good or OK economic news, mumble...mumble...not as good as it could have been...mumble. If the UK government makes some statement about it, pour scorn on it. If some loudmouth like Guy Verhofstat does a bit of trolling, imply that's definitely the EU final position, and it's totally correct, and the UK government smell of poo. If some Tory backbencher does a bit of similar trolling - cry "Infamy!"
But surely deliberately skewing the way your report news and your comment to make things more partisan and less clear - and so polarise the debate even more - is not what a good newspaper should do. Under its new editor, I think the Guardian has become the Daily Mail of the left. Which is a shame, I used to like the Guardian.
I don't know if Wakefield believed his crap or not. He had a conflict of interest, because he ran a company that did the vaccines individually - but it's entirely possible that he believed that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and so went out to prove it and also make money from it on the side.
He did fake some of the data in the research though. Which is why his co-researchers initially supported him, and then suddenly found out and rapidly distanced themselves from him.
He also took samples from children without the parents permission at events to promote his single vaccines.
And of course put the parents of kids with autism through hell, thinking that it was partly their fault that their kids had the condition. And some still believe it's a government cover-up because of his bollocks.
The bad thing was the hysterical coverage from the press at only one bit of research questioning the vaccines, and the scientific ignorance of papers like the Mail in continuing to promote the story when it looked like it might be bollocks.
To be fair to the Guardian, proper moderation is very expensive. Especially when you have as many users and comments as they do. Most of their threads that allow comments go into the hundreds, and the contentious ones go into the thousands.
And here's an important difference. The Guardian do it, and lost £30-odd million last year. Facebook make over a billion a quarter.
The Register are lucky that their commentards are relatively fluffy and benign.
Perhaps the public also need to take responsibility for who they vote for? If we vote for the shiny, smiley politicians who tell us only what we want to hear - then eventually that's the only kind of politicians we'll get.
If we scream gaffe at every politician who makes a minor mistake in an interview (or even worse expresses an inconvenient truth rather too bluntly) - then we'll get a bunch of media professionals trained to say as little as possible.
You shouldn't edit someone's post without clear warning. I've been a forum Mod and the [snip]play nice - the Mods[snip] is acceptable to save an otherwise good post that's gone too far. But in general it's better to just delete the whole thing. Which sometimes leaves you forced to delete one-or-two follow-up posts, which no longer make sense.
However moderation ain't censorship. Censorship is where you're not allowed to make your argument by the government. There's no requirement that anyone has to listen to you. The Guardian have built that audience and that platform, and it's theirs to control. If they let you have your say on it, then well done them. If they don't, it's a shame. But it's not their job to give you their audience - you can always go out and get your own.
I've never done media studies - so no idea if it's the joke course it's often derided as. But we really ought to teach this in schools. Along with some sort of basic "citizenship" lessons - teaching about elections, and how to get the benefits you're entitled to and who to go to for help if you've been screwed over by your bank.
I got my media studies lesson from learning history. The big question you have to ask is about the reliability of your sources. So a primary source was there at the time, or got the information directly from participants - which you hope gives more accuracy. But also increases the likelihood of bias, as they might like or dislike the people concerned. You also learn that some historians cheat, by selecting their sources. And that as no historian can see all the sources, everyone will be introducing some bias by what they select. Which is of course a great tool for looking at the media.
You even get this innoculation thing from it. As you have to write essays. And in those you're asked to construct an argument. Often you actually put both sides of the argument, and of course you get to pick which one is stronger, and will therefore win, and write your conclusion accordingly. Which is really good training for reading journalist's opinion pieces - where they do love to select a nice straw man to beat, instead of looking at the real argument from the other side. Although nowadays it seems more fashionable to deny that the other side even have a legitimate argument (Guardian I'm looking at you here - but you're not alone).
I post this because of the quote from the article:
Bernie Hogan of the Oxford Internet Institute said that the gamification of fake news was “putting a nice face” on the idea that individuals - not experts or respected institutions - are now in charge of defining truth and fiction.
"It's creating the impression that it's the consumer’s job to arbitrate the facts - and all facts are fair game for the consumer to arbitrate," Hogab said.
You can't always trust the institutions either. In a democracy we are all responsible for checking. Because the experts and institutions often have their own self-interest to protect - or suffer from groupthink.
Look at the Brexit debate for examples. The Telegraph never reports anything good the EU does, the Guardian treats all bad Brexit news as imminent disaster and ignores anything that doesn't fit this narrative. Meanwhile institutions like the CBI tell us that leaving will be a disaster (coincidentally remaining is in their collective interests), and might well be right. But neglect to mention that they also told us not joining the Euro would be a disaster, which it definitely wasn't.
So on Brexit what news source can you trust? The Beeb tried very hard I think, but had already burned a lot of their credibilty with Brexiteers being quite partisan about EU issues the decade before. Maybe it's no wonder the debate has become so polarised and poisonous. Everyone's in their bubble - screaming abuse at the other side, but unable to listen to them.
It's not censorship. It's editorship.
If I go out and look at crap websites and go down the conspiracy rabbithole then that's my concern. Nobody is (yet) talking about getting rid of those. If I post that on my Facebook page, that's still fine. My friends can then see it but it's still not Facebook's problem. So long as there are ways to get that stuff taken down if it's an ISIS beheading video or something.
However as soon as Facebook decide to edit a newsfeed then they become publishers. As soon as they make the choice to take that content that I've posted and stick it in everyone else's "news feed" then they're publishing it, and they should be responsible for it.
Now FB's argument is basically: Poor us. It ain't fair. We didn't write it. Boo hoo. And we didn't publish it, our users put it there. And anyway an algorithm did it
and ran away, we didn't so we're not responsible.
1. You wrote the fucking algorithm. You take responsibility for your own fucking choices. An algorithm is simply a procedure for getting a computer to follow your instructions. If you get those instructions wrong - it's your fault. Do better next time.
2. You've got loads 'a money. You're no longer start-ups. Spend some of it on making your service less shit.
3. You're the cheapskates who built a business model based on getting your users to create your content at no cost to you. Plus a liberal amount of taking publishers' content and freeloading on it (Youtube we're also looking at you). So don't complain that some of that content is awful and you're going to have to spend money fixing it. Write good content and pay your way - or scrutinise the shit you get for free.
4. The moment you start selecting material, by human or by algorithm, you're an editor. Take responsibility for your choices.
5. Oh yes, and try fucking thinking ahead once in a while. Yes, we all make mistake. But if you're going to take advertising money direct from the Russian government during the US election campaign, maybe that should raise just the teensiest question or two. Oh I see. You like money, and don't give a fuck about anything else? Oh well, in that case, fair enough. Who could argue with that?
To be pedantic, I believe your section 75 rights only come in on purchases by credit card that are above £100. But still, it's useful insurance - and the fact that my credit card is one remove from my actual bank account is why I'd never use a debit card online.
KFC is grease with added chicken bone.
FTFY. The skin is intact, and crispy coated, but they seem to have some special process to remove the actual meat (presumably for use in pies) - so that you get a bite of crispy skin, then there's just bone.
I don't want a smartphone to be drab and boring. Though I don't really care. I want it to be clear and simple.
Something that both and stock Android and iOS often fail dismally at.
I admit that live tiles didn't really work properly. Not that I care, because I pretty much don't want them. Widgets (or whatever Android now calls them) often aren't big enough to display the info you want, without opening the app. So a badge or number to tell you which apps have new info is fine.
Win Phone has both my personal and work emails as links on the home page with a number of unread messages on. That's fine for me. Same for missed calls and unread texts.
The advantage of Android is the infinite customisation. But the downside of that is complication. To get it "right" will I'm sure take me hours of trial and error.
It's in the standard for screwdrivers that they have to be strong enough to open paint tins without bending. Because they're going to get used to open paint tins whether you like it or not.
Which leads to the question, why doesn't my fucking software have a line of dancing monkeys!
Oi! Programmers! Get on it now! I want dancing monkeys whenever I send an email.
Actually we need to delete this entire thread - because someone might do that. This is an idea with the potential to make the MS paperclip look like a pleasant and useful piece of user interface design.
Yes please! In a sesame seed bun, with onions, cheese, mustard, mayo and pickles.
And I'll take a 50 page document to go.
For some things, paper is better. I have 60-odd PDF datasheets on my pooter. The more important ones are in my paper info file, along with hard copies of certain bits of legislation and useful British standards documents. When I'm on the phone, and in a hurry, that file is what I flick through to get the right answers to the right questions without having to stop mid-sentence to make my computer find me the stuff I want.
Oh and it has the price lists too, with hand-written annotations.
I love my tablet, but even if I had a work one, I just don't see it being as fast to search as I can flick through a well-organised folder with dividers for the important sections.
Chrome didn't reach market dominance through just being on the Google home page. Though I'm sure that helped.
Chrome got a huge boost because it was downloaded like malware, when you updated Flash (and some other software) and failed to untick the relevant box. It's how the "Google toolbar" ends up in peoples' browsers too.
Also Chrome seems to be quite good at getting itself set as default browser, for some reason.
Apple used similar dodgy tactics with Safari for a while, getting it installed along with itunes updates. But the difference is they never seemed to manage to fool users into making it their default - and most never noticed it was there.
If you're trading using bitcoin, selling stuff online for it and buying other stuff. then you're probably un-catchable. But if you've bought it online via an exchange using your bank or credit card, then you've left records. And should you get audited by the tax man, that will be glaringly obvious. Otherwise you can get away with it as easily as any other transaction that attracts CGT.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018