Re: She can use a computer!
It's hardly surprising. When you have to pick your government from brexit-supporting MPs you're not going to get the brightest pennies in the box. At least Farage has thoughtfully skimmed off the very worst though.
2289 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jul 2009
I use it by default but still use google a fair bit.
I like that it gives me a proper link, not an obscured one.
If I want to provide someone with a url, I can generally click on a google link, traverse their tracking code and paste the resulting url into my document.
But if the url I want to give them is a pdf, it won't appear in my browser it will just pop up the document in the pdf viewer with no url shown.
With Duckduckgo, I can just scrape the needed url from the search page and paste it - no need to go through the tracking link. Which is far more usable.
On the +side for google, it's more likely to give me UK results for my searches, which is handy for shopping (though not much else).
I'm quite puzzled about those tactical lesions he was giving.
OK, so lets take a big pinch of salt and assume that he's telling the truth.
What technical knowledge could bj possibly possess ? He's a classics 'scholar' fer gawds sake. And a politician. He's not going to know about anything except fornicating with pigs.
Read the background to the song 'Sixteen tons'.
The financial barriers corporations such as Facebook would like to break down are those we erected to try to protect ourselves from debt slavery. They're not barriers restricting the users : they're barriers protecting them.
So yes, they are proposing to return some of that money to users. Temporarily, in order to build up debt.
@FIlippo
Thank you, that's a good argument. Two further points though :
I was addressing the question regarding why an alternative banks is appealing. This is the motivation : we don't want to be screwed and have lost the trust we once had in various financial organisations as we perceive them to have moved from offering a service to holding us to ransom. There isn't necessarily a good alternative available but we wish there were, so we are attracted by schemes that claim to offer that. Marketing people also know this.
I agree that monitoring to ensure safe transactions is mostly inevitable. But it could, as it once did, go no further. There isn't any need for it to feed into advertising or governmental control. Bitcoin (whatever the failings - I'm talking about appeal here, not practicality) promised this by using maths to do the policing rather than corruptable organisations.
Ultimately, that will probably be the requirement : Governments or corporations holding the security and maths verifying the transactions. Because no organisation holds sufficient trust any more (Facebook is only the worst option, the others aren't a lot better) and will not again - it is often said that trust, once lost, is harder to regain.
But we're not there yet in capability (see argument elsewhere about power consumption, and the known security problems of exchanges), and those organisations will fight hard to keep control of the transactions. So we're still due a very long period of the existing state whereby we use competing organisations to keep the others 'honest' (fvsvo 'honest').
"I've not quite figured out yet why we need *any* cryptocurrencies."
Because we think we're being screwed by the existing financial providers and regulators and would like to get out from under the heel of governments that use regulation as a method of monitoring and control.
However, it's difficult to think of anybody less suitable than Facebook to run an alternative. The Mafia, maybe ? No scrub that/ The mafia's violent reputation makes them scary but they seem archaic, limited and trustworthy compared with Zuckerberg. More scam rackets than global control.
"Currently just 8 per cent of properties across the UK currently have access to full-fibre broadband. However, prime minister Boris Johnson has pledged to bring full fibre to everyone by 2025 – a goal that has been deemed unachievable by telecoms exports."
Sure. But Boris Johnson is full of crap. Why on earth would anyone take any notice of his latest lies ?
It's a mystery to me that news outlets even give him screentime.
I get that using equipment from a carrier that you don't trust has possibilities of DoS and maybe metadata. But if you're concerned that the equipment can sniff your communications, aren't you Doing It Wrong ? Why would you want to expose stuff that could be end-to-end encrypted ? Aren't network technicians just as much a risk as the OEM ?
"So make up your mind what you want. Do you want to let refugees apply at each country separately, or do you want your immigration policy absolutely (as opposed to just partly) dictated by foreigners? It's one or the other."
See, there's your problem,. right there. You think other members of the same superstate are foreigners. They're not., They're us.
Grow up and stop being such a parochial, insular, xenophobic child.
If stack exchange want to foster a community of kindness, collaboration and self-respect they could do worse than sack ALL the moderators. It has none of those characteristics, instead concentrating on cutting topics short when they're just getting interesting, pointlessly recategorising questions because they're allegedly off-topic.
I don't ever go to stack exchange to ask anything now, but on the occasion google finds a match for something I'm curious about, the useful stuff is almost always obscured by the moderators. Occasionally, the contributors give a good answer anyway, despite but never helped by the mods.
The whole organisation is so far up its own arsehole a few more feet to handle gender-appropriate pronouns won't make a scrap of difference. It will just create another element for moderators to moan about.
Lets just hope this argument kills it off once and for all. The only good thing about it is that it isn't as bad as quora, which hides its useless answers behind a login screen that isn't worth the effort of using.
You're not supposed to work it out. You're supposed to give in, go with the flow and roll over because anything else is too much trouble.
The government doesn't care about whether industry is competitive, consumers are happy etc. They just listen to short-sighted accountants who see a tiny fraction of their income escaping and are prepared to go to any expense to avoid it.
Compare with cost/benefit of chasing benefit claimants : there isn't any, but it makes the Daily Wail happy to spend more than they recover in clawback. So they do it anyway.
We need some scammer to try collecting on contracts that are 'verified' by an email footer, and the resulting court battle.
The legal descriptions I've read on this sort of subject all seem to hinge on intent : they feel a bunch of ascii in an email is a valid indication that you meant the email to be taken as your intent and that it's therefore as good as a signature. In other words, you can't get out of a contract by claiming your email doesn't contain your written signature.
However, they don't seem interested in considering the forgery side of things - whether it was you that sent the email. Perhaps this is because banks etc. don't really check signatures on checks any more and written signatures aren't really worth much either. But it's an area that needs discussion, not sweeping under the carpet.
"Let me know when you have results for 10%of the population per city. I might believe the results have any significance."
Agreed.
But at least it's more realistic than the network's estimates, which count how many of the people connected to their masts have connections to their masts.
72% turnout and the largest ever vote in favour of a specific policy?
But still a marginal difference swamped by that 28% of non-voters. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
"Reinforced the next year by a general election in which 80-85% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?
Reinforced earlier this year by a European election in which 60% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?"
It would be wonderful if the british people started voting for their beliefs instead of along the usual party lines. Unfortunately it doesn't look like happening any time soon, and both of the parties that get most of the votes were too scared - despite their internal divisions - to stand on a platform that contradicted the referendum result. That situation is slowly changing but we still don't have a major party offering anything more than another referendum.
You might believe that, but it doesn't make it correct. All the hysterical shrieking about 'delivering brexit' is from people who are well aware that it was a marginal and irrational result that would be ditched if sanity were allowed to prevail.
I don't think courts lobby for anything. They judge what others lobby for, though there may well be some doing that.
Personally I think a written constitution is probably a bad thing. What would be written is likely to be less liberal than the existing ambiguity, along the lines of 'it is better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission'.
The travel version is great. So good I bought the big version (performance MX) for desk use. It's very disappointing : battery doesn't last, its fussy about where on the desk it is (doesn't like the shiny patch where a mouse has been used for years) and it keeps getting stuck in one axis only (obvious fault with a ball mouse but difficult to understand with an optical). Not recommended.
"You could also argue that less time spent fixing broken on-premises IT means more time to focus on innovation; but it is true that cloud computing is a kind of outsourcing and there are downsides."
Not really. That might be true in the short term, but in the long term the jobs will be deskilled to cut costs, so the postholders won't be able to do any more than they're required to.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a subject for tech/beancounter 'discussion'.