To add to all the other stupidity of Google CAPTCHAs, we have to recognise AMERICAN cars,
AMERICAN street signs, AMERICAN shop fronts, etc.
223 posts • joined 15 Jul 2009
Why did we ever allow this cr@p on our webpages in the first place.
I was just checking out the "more computing power than Apollo 11" adage. In fact your bluetooth devices have more computing power than Apollo 11 had. This seems to be the best account.
So, FIFY, it now takes more computing power to load one poxy webpage than the whole world had when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.
Big thanks to Jamie for setting this site up on his server, where it is now live.
To Loyal Commenter: of course I agree with everything you say, but I think you might be overestimating the numbers. A bit over a week ago I attended a presentation by a BfE person originally from Bristol that 50,000 had signed up on the PV website, FB, Eventbrite etc. Received wisdom is that you multiply such numbers by 10 to get the actual turnout.
The angry, stupid children have smashed up the house: and they are precisely the wrong people to fix it.
Agree with you completely, except that the angry stupid grandma and grandpa smashed up the house, leaving the children to fix it.
I have been of the opinion since Gordon Brown was in no 10 that we have no competent politicians in any of the parties.
no one said "well planned"
My comment stands nevertheless. There has been no "planning" at all, even bad planning.
Equally, brexit will not just fail to bring net benefits, it will not benefit anybody in any way at all, except perhaps American billionaires, and I now doubt that it will even benefit them.
Thank you for the first journalistic article I have seen on this topic that says it honestly as it is: researchers do all the work in producing journals, publishers do nothing. Researchers always did the (research and authorship, obviously, and) refereeing, but for the last 30 years (thanks to LaTeX) they have done the typesetting too. In fact Springer mangled the typesetting of the last paper of mine that they published, despite repeated assurances from the editor of the volume that they wouldn't touch it.
If you read what I wrote, you will see that I have nothing to do with "social media". What is needed, simply to make the anti-brexit movement work as well as any company (I am not saying that is "well") is some basic IT competence to do its internal management.
As to whether it is going anywhere, when protests happen, politicians slip quietly out of meetings to whisper in the organisers' ears to thank them for not letting the matter rest quietly. For example, when we had a little demo outside the Tory Party Conference in Birmingham in October 2016, people tiptoed out to say "there are people in there trying to stop this madness".
So please offer to help instead of complaining.
The entire anti-brexit movement is run on Facebook. There at least 700 closed FB groups, most apparently with very few members, which will therefore have little impact on the campaign. But besides this, the national organisations run their entire operations through FB groups. I have had most contact with Britain for Europe, which represents the grass roots groups.
Despite telling people essentially what hit the news this weekend, other activists will not take no for an answer when I refuse to join FB (these are people who who not pressurise a vegetarian to eat meat). The solution to every problem is yet another FB page, whilst the websites are hosted on "free" services such as Google and Wix, giving out edit privileges liberally. None of the activists has a clue about information management.
To put it the other way round, it seems that IT-competent people are not willing to volunteer for the campaign. You can see from my comments elsewhere on this site that I am not really an IT person: I am a mathematician in a CS department. But I have taken to calling myself "the only geek in the village", since noone else has any programming skills at all.
If you'd like to help, please contact me at email@example.com
And if you hear somebody dismiss Y2K as nothing, remind them it turned out that way because of the how the tech community prepared for it.
You might imagine that the CEO of Birmingham Chamber of Commerce might have a bit of a clue about (a) IT and (b) the business implications of erasing 45 years of trade legislation.
Said CEO, Paul Faulkner, was a speaker at a recent event about brexit at Birmingham City University. He breezily dismissed concerns about whether planes could fly on 30 March 2019. "It's scaremongering," he said, "just like Y2K, nothing will happen."
In the audience time I took the opportunity to point out that "nothing had happened at Y2K" because thousands, if not millions, of programmers had put in the overtime to fix it. David Davis, on the other hand, had just admitted that he hadn't done his homework and didn't have a clue what the "impact" of brexit might be on 57 industries. I don't know what the legal basis is for flying a plane across the Channel, but so far as I can gather, it will be illegal when we pull the plug on 45 years of legislation.
On a point of information, the tu quoque (you too) defence was found to be valid at the Nuremberg war crimes trials and got Doenitz off: see here.
That does not deflect from my view that, despite my one-time sympathy for him, it's time Assange faced his Swedish trial for alleged attempted rape and before that his British one for jumping bail. I don't think I need to say what I think of the Orange Snowflake.
Somebody put a petition on the Parliament website proposing an amendment to the Treason Act to the effect that anyone campaigning for UK to rejoin the EU would be guilty of it. Next we'll have one making it a criminal offence to speak French or Greek (both of which I'm studying at the moment). The Brexiters certainly have a particularly sick mindset and have no comprehension of what Democracy is, unless, that is, we translate it as mob-rule. Congratulations, by the way, to the Commentard who read the Supreme Court judgement: I forbad myself to do so because other things need to be done.
The article, comments and presumably the legislation all seem to be founded on the idea that private landlords are evil capitalist bastards who are in league with the evil capitalist bastard ISPs, whilst tenants are exploited but know best how to get the best deals.
The other point of view is that maybe the landlord has looked for a good deal, which the tenant screws up because, like many customers, s/he has been seduced by some marketing scam that will tie the property physically and legally to some evil capitalist ISP (or energy supplier or ...) long after the end of the tenancy.
We carry around with us nowadays plenty of spare storage and cpu power to include an atlas, or at least a street atlas of wherever we're planning to go. However, the powers that sell us the technology ignore that and want us "connected" all the time, I suspect for their own motives. Another problem with carrying a digital atlas is copyright.
So where I hoped this article might be going was to tell us that OpenStreetMap now has excellent coverage and some easy to use system for downloading data in bulk and displaying it as needed. Maybe it could use the Debian package management system. But no, that's not sexy enough. It would be nice to know anyway.
Au contraire. In 2009 BT Retail had my phone and ICUK my broadband. There was a fault on the phone line. BT Retail's reponse was to blame me. More faults. After 4 1/2 months the fault only affected ADSL so I got ICUK on to it. Within an hour or so they had got Openreach to "reset the line". My guess is that the DSLAM (or whatever it is called) was knocked out of place, but BT Retail was structurally incapable of fixing such a fault, because it would require insight or extended technical communication with the customer. Of course I switched my phone line to ICUK and there has been no similar problem since then. Lengthy discussion with BT "high level complaints" and the "ombudsman" was just a whitewash.
It's a pity that the press (at least the Guardian online and Radio 4 lunchtime news) didn't explain the legal argument.
The Executive (in the UK quaintly called the Crown) has Prerogative to decide on foreign affairs. The Brexit Secretary's case was that membership of the EU is a foreign affair. However, only Parliament gets to pass domestic legislation. The Government's case failed because the 1972 Act and membership of the EU creates domestic rights, so it is not within "Royal" Prerogative to remove those rights without the approval of Parliament.
I am not a lawyer, but this does look like a pretty robust Judgement, so I have every hope that the Supreme Court will support it. In the highly unlikely case that the Government appeal to the CJEU, I cannot imagine that that would allow an executive to deny the supremacy of a parliament.
In fact this Judgement is another chapter in the 17th century struggle of Parliament against the Crown. A historic occasion!
In the Judgement, there are three Categories of such rights, of which (ii) includes for example my freedom of movement as a British Citizen in other EU countries.
I am immensely grateful to Shinzo Abe for knocking a rather large nail into the coffin of Brexit, but I also had this thought:
Any westerner who has visited the Land of the Rising Sun will know that it is impossible to satisfy the requirements of Japanese courtesy and one is always a gaijin. Anyone who has witnessed a Japanese apology will know that it is cringeworthy. So it is really quite entertaining to see them behave in a way that we would see as incredibly undiplomatic.
Jay, maybe you also missed the fact that it was a Leaver who started the petition asking for a second referendum,
which has now been signed by four million people and is due to be debated on 5 September.
There is no symmetry between whether there was a Leave or Remain win. There should always be a presumption in favour of the status quo and an obstacle to change. This has already been observed here by comparison to the US Constitution, for example, but since this is a tech site let me put it in engineering terms.
The thermostat on your central heating doesn't turn it on as soon as the room goes 0.1 degree below the set level, because to do so would damage the system. Anyone who argues that one vote over 50% should be enough to trigger drastic change must equally accept that if two people change their mind then there must immediately be a drastic reversal. Clearly that would be stupid. Ergo, making the drastic change in the first place on such a flimsy margin is stupid.
PS don't forget the March for Europe on 3 September.
I seem to have missed the bit about there being a designated 60% threshold,
You missed it because the Cabinet, Opposition, Select Committees, House of Lords and maybe even the Queen (in her private weekly chats with her PM) failed to do their jobs in scrutinising proposed legislation. The one Remaining hope is that they will do their jobs at least in the rearguard defence.
that when Parliament (especially the Select Committees) gets back from its hols, they actually do their job (as they failed to do by allowing the referendum to go through without a 60% threshold) by grilling David Davies and his pals mercilessly until they finally admit that this whole affair is economic suicide, a pack of lies and vastly infeasible.
Any organisation that does have a codified constitution has clauses in it about how to change it, typically requiring a 2/3 majority. In the US some large proportion of states have to ratify it. The first Scottish devolution referendum was in favour but not by a large enough turnout. Tory trades union law puts up hurdles for strike ballots. Yes, in an election, some> candidate has to win, even if by 50.0001%. When the issue is to create economic chaos, as we are already seeing, 52% is nowhere near a big enough mandate.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018