In a likewise moment, I came across the word "Feminsisting" as an antonym for Mansplaining.
1070 posts • joined 12 May 2010
In a likewise moment, I came across the word "Feminsisting" as an antonym for Mansplaining.
"Etsy, Tumblr, and Foursquare."
Tumblr?! Oh, you're screwed now! There'll be shrieking, and half-baked, unresearched opinions about how it makes them feel in seconds! If you're not careful, they'll follow up with an article about eejit pies tailors and ten things you didn't know bout the word neutraility.
So, Rudd quit on the 29th April, which is only a couple of days before May.
...With some luck.
"Rouguelike games are a very niche concern these days"
Nuh-Uh. Do a quick search on Steam for Roguelike and goggle at the myriad returns. Of course, us old school purists might gripe that many of them are not really Roguelike, but it remains they are still very present as a concept in gaming.
Now, back to Dwarf Fortress with me.
"you'd have formalised that arrangement with an indefinite visa or a British passport and/or kept hold of the evidence of when you arrived"
Or, you know, we could assume they are in the right and take a look at other records to determine the validity of that. Records like NI contributions, educational history, health records, electoral role, tax payments...
But no, far better to assume that they are illegal and ignore all other evidence to the contrary. Typical of May and Cronies.
"And the same thing applied in the UK's 2016 Brexit referendum when it was Cambridge Analytica's sister firm in the SCL group, AggregateIQ, that did that same kind of work that secured the marginal win for the Leave campaign."
Here's a thought: We might consider CA to be the final balancing factor in the Brexit vote, yes, but it can be argued that surely one company can't have had the clout to be that final factor.... ...But what if CA isn't alone? What if the PtB used more than one company/method to rig/sway/influence the vote and we've only found ONE conspirator so far? If I were seeking to "influence the outcome" of such a pivotal and crucial vote I'd certainly not trust the result to a single actor.
Allow me a brief summation of the repeated, ongoing conversation between zucks and the US-PtB....
Senate: Zucks! You make good donation! You make money! Is good American Dream.
Zucks: Hi. Yes. Sorry. I'll try to do better.
Senate: Zucks, how internet work?
Zucks: because people let me. Sorry. I'll try to do better.
Senate: How you make money?
Zucks: I sell adverts. Sorry. I'll try to do better.
Senate: You make lot money?
Zucks. Yes. Its the American Dream. Sorry.
Senate: *open mouthed breathing & Confused looks*
Senate: what is internet?
Zucks: *smirks* Sorry. I'll get someone on that.
Repeat ad nauseum.
If it's easy for a company to ignore the equal pay law, which it appears to be if any of this is true, and if there is a deliberate intention to subvert that law and pay women less than men, which seems to be the acceptable face of conspiracy theory, and if that gender pay gap is in a range of 12% - 70%, Depending on which source you are taking as authorative,) and if women are provably just as good at any job as any man, despite there being so many less women in STEM roles...
...why don't companies employ more women than men?
"demand an 18.6% pay rise"
Or, a 18.6% paycut for men due to "Legislative requirements *shrug*. Sorry" or, better still, only have female employees and save your company 18.6% in salaries each year. Nice.
It's all utter crap anyway; the ONS itself takes age range into consideration and it can be seen there that women under 30 tend to earn more than men across the board, whereas the largest gap is seen in comparing women and men over 50, where the gap is indeed substantially in favour of men. Now, why would that be? Could it possibly be that newer contracts follow the equal pay legislation that exists whereas the older contracts don't? Oh, what a shock!
These headline grabbing stats are highly manipulated. They ignore sector, age range, contracts, legislation and all sorts of other factors. Indeed, in some cases the biggest "gaps" are found by comparing part-time, low skill, female workers over the age of fifty against young, highly skilled, professional full-time+ male roles. Guess what? if you compare Mrs. Part-Time tea lady to Mr. CEO of Big Pharma, you get a big difference! Another shock!
Anyway, if we are going to uplift women who earn less then men are we also going to uplift men who earn less than men or women? No? Why not?
"year all organisations now have a duty to preserve human rights"
Anyone pointed that out to our employers and government recently?
"...if someone is a victim of an “Internet-enabled crime”, they should sue the platform involved."
I see. So those people who have been a victim of the recent spate of terror incidents involving cars running into crowds should sue the car manufacturers, sales divisions and perhaps even rental companies involved for allowing them to become the victim of a "vehicle-enabled crime"?
" who doesn't want to make life miserable for the greedy vermin who are constantly clawing private data and manuring the web with their pathetically awful adverts?"
Hmm. I don't like clawing, greedy vermin of any kind. Whether they are advertisers, or bankers, or lawyers, or finance lenders, etc. etc. They are all out to get their sticky hands in your pockets, and little else. Most of them see this as a morally good thing to do, despite it not being.
The issue is, if we do away with the advertising market, then how do we get these "free" services? I know, I know, I'm the product, but here's the thing - this trade of "I'll read your adverts, you harvest data from my habits to sell to the advertisers, who then advertise to me hoping I'll read it." is a form of barter isn't it? If we kill advertising, then the question surely becomes "how do we want to pay for that?", and that could, possibly, be the thin end of a wedge against net neutrality?
I know there are less scrupulous uses of my personal data going on (election rigging, for example), and that needs addressing, but is that a separate concern to targeted advertising? Are we trying to hammer all harvesters of data with the same club, and should we be doing so? Are some worse
I'm not sure I want a range of paid subscription based services that are probably still going to monetize my data/activity on their site - Perhaps the adverts that I generally block or ignore are preferable? Am I barking up the wrong tree here?
(If you've not played this, do so.)
"Shouldn't that be the approval of the person using it?"
I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I think what FB is saying is that if you submit an app to Facebook for use by Facebook members, then, if that app has a requirement for more data than name, photo and email, it will need further approval by Facebook before launch. Of course the end user can always refuse privileges to an app at the point of installation/use (at least in theory, eh?).
""See how he likes it."
Erm....what exactly are you posting on facebook?
Yeah, that Zuckerberg eh? Literally Hitler!
"told what to do by the vested interests of France and Germany"
Yay! Now we get told what to do by the Conservatives and their cronies, big media and get to be the rope in a tug of war between the US and China instead. So much better!
And the cons get to make up whatever laws they like without oversight!
Ah, paradise! But, we get to be the Empire again? Do we get uniforms?
Only complete morons think that we are taking power back to the nation. We're not. We're handing it to the psycho's who put us in this situation in the first place and removing our ability to appeal against their nonsense.
"Every time remainers spout this crap another 20k people convert to the cause because they realise how retarded their side is."
Quite so! *slowclap*
Now, can we have the promised £350 million per week into the NHS?
""Sounds like someone is still bitter about how democracy works... ""
What? Like how big data, bought out with big money, illegally, can be used to rig the result?
Ah yeah, I forgot I'm not meant to be bitter about that.
"A criminal act is a criminal act."
Except when its not a criminal act and is instead a civil infringement such as littering, parking poorly, or letting your dog crap on the pavement. Civil infringements attract fines levied via a magistrate. Criminal acts involve going to court and standing before judge and jury.
Its worth *every citizen* understanding this difference.
"pompous knownothings on the Ctee"
Nah, they'll have Amber Rudd, the well known tech expert, right there to insist that zuck applies the correct hashtags immediately.
so the Beeb have spoken up a little now and are reporting on the story. In part.
Specifically, note how they are loudly mentioning that CA may have had something to do with Trumps election, but there's not a whisper of how they may have affected the Brexit referendum.
" hence the Mythic Cosmological record across Antiquity and our human conditioning in its likeness"
"The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy."
I propose, tentatively, that this approach generates a narrow answer to a broader question. Surely what we want to know is "are we alone" and the Drake Equation seems to attempt to answer that in a very specific manner; it looks for "active" civilisations in its incipient form, and with the addition of time frame to the equation it delimits by those civilisations being "dead" or "alive".
But, I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke who suggested that our first contact with an alien civilization would probably be through remnant technology (as explored in novels such as "rendezvous with rama") or with automated probes (such as humanities Voyager program). Both of these possibilities are not bounded by timeframe, radio transmission ranges or even the carbon-life/death cycle that we presume all lifeforms will suffer from, and yet an encounter with such would provide proof of alien intelligence, whether contemporary or not.
My conclusion, therefore, is that the Drake Equation is an imperfect tool that really only asks the following question: "Are there alien civilisations active and alive right now, in our galaxy alone (thus precluding the infinite/finite universe question) that have the technology to communicate with us using methods with which we are familiar?"
A far cry from "Are we alone?".
[Edit: on review, this may come across as a "straw man" critique, but I still think its a view worth considering.]
"The Universe is a smaller place with his passing"
But also bigger because of his life.
"he will last a few days before...."
Yeah, because that's justice too, eh? You know, the more I look at this the more I become convinced that there is something fundamentally wrong with American notions of fairness and justice. You seem to think that the only crimes worth punishing are ones that white people commit against wealth, or any minor misdemeanor committed by black or Hispanic people. The measure of punishment against these two groups is clearly grossly disproportionate and the sentences can be 'negotiated' provided you have sufficient access to the Almighty Dollar.
It's seriously demented, but that's ok because you can always "PRAY" in capital letters and that makes everything alright.
If god actually exists, with or without his son who preached forgiveness, inclusion, tolerance and love, then I bet they are face-palming every time they have to look at what you've become.
Take a step back, take a deep breath, and start your nation over please.
No, it hasn't, and nor will it most likely.
Shkreli wasn't arrested for putting thousands of aids patients at risk of death, that's not a crime in the US. Instead, he made the error of taking money from rich people and using it like they would, and therein lies the crime he was charged with.
Inflate a drug price to a level where only the rich can afford it? No crime.
Steal money from rich people? Down you go.
America. Fuck you.
"Asking for underage pr0n: creepy"
Actually, also illegal. Counts as grooming and, under UK extreme pornography laws, if you do get sent something along those lines it counts as "Making an image of" which is as near as makes no difference an offence of strict liability. This means that there is almost no defence that a court is required to take into account and that 'mens rea' (the intention to commit a crime) doesn't have to be proven. In fact, there are only three valid defences: I haven't seen these images and didn't know they existed (best of luck proving that if they are on your phone/PC), I didn't ask for these images (best of luck proving that when you've solicited such things online), or they are pictures of my children intended to be sent to my spouse (I'm sure she will be impressed being used as an alibi for your habits).
Here's the law:
"That doesn't demand any consideration of what real world laws are, should be, or what the rest of society may think."
Ah, thanks heavens for a little Voltaire! I think you may be shouting into the wind with society as a whole if you intend to lean on Kants Categorical Imperative, however, as no one thinks like that anymore. it's all "me, me, me" and "I want" or "I don't like". Glance down this forum; "I want to castrate him", "I want to ban facebook", "I don't like it, so you can't have it.". People just don't realise that if they got their way, so would everyone else and before you know it, we're all screwed out of something we value or want.
If you aren't willing for the ethical rule you claim to be following to be applied equally to everyone - including you - then that rule is not a valid moral rule. You can't claim that something is a valid moral rule and make an exception for yourselves, or arbitrarily for others of your choice; those who agree with you, for instance.
Nope, the crowd says non-consequentialism rules, and as we all know in this day and age, the crowd is loud....I mean right...sorry.
"I miss the option about castrating the adult male and then informing the police... "
...That you have committed an act of grievous bodily harm. Good of you to hand yourself in.
...unless of course you were unaware that you can't commit an act of violence based on a suspicion that the person you just attacked might have committed a crime and then expect the police to say "good job, citizen! Saved us all the trouble there!".
"Spycam pens are useful for this kind of thing."
Be cautious with this approach, it's a legal grey zone. In some cases the judge will allow recordings made by an employee (or aggrieved party) only if they show clear evidence of discriminatory behavior, and in other cases they may consider it "dirty evidence" obtained by covert means and dismiss it. There's no hard and fast rules at this time.
" I found your language offensive, tough luck"
It's not (yet) a crime to say something that offends someone, unless you are inciting a crime of some kind. Of course, there are many people who either believe that, when they are offended, they are the victims of a crime or that causing offence should be a crime. But they are stupid people who'd silence the world.
Here's the legislation. Note that the word "insulting" has recently been removed from the bill by amendment in the House of Lords.
If language is, specifically, "Threatening or Abusive" you can be charged, but the word "offensive" is not included, nor is there any provision for people "feeling offended". You can find my language offensive all you want, but provided I don't threaten or abuse you with my language you have no recourse to the law.
"I'd suggest commentators here be VERY careful on what they say"
I'm not going to incite anyone to crime of any kind, I am not going to speak in support of a known illegal terrorist organization, I am not going to engage in hate-speech intended to inflame public disorder. I am not going to throw slander around.
In short, I am not going to commit a crime, and I will avoid being sued for slander on a civil basis.
Beyond that, I'll say whatever the fuck I like. When I like. Where I like.
Fuck you and your "ooh. be careful with your thought-crime, citizen." and the horse it rode in on.
"Oh humans really can be corroded by malignant information exposure, doubt-toxin, buffer-overflow, trustlink-transplant etc etc. I mean, what is a cult if not that? What is religion?"
The evidence is that playing video games or enjoying violent movies won't turn you into a psychopath, but I'd hesitate to underestimate the power of social meeja to convince people that something is right to a point where they act upon it. By way of example, I offer you 3rd and 4th wave feminism and how the nonsense coming from that camp is now informing and adjusting social policy and law throughout the western world. If you think someone can't be radicalized beyond all reason by online opinions have a google for "triggerlypuff".
Yeah.. I've never come across a 4" floppy either. 3.5" and 5.25" yes, but never a 4".
"Not a UN Special Commission, but a Working Group on Arbitrary Detention."
Thank you. I stand corrected on that point.
"And your evidence of this is? (I can't even believe that I'm typing this..)"
Yeah, I can't believe you typed that either.... here you go. No mouth breathers involved. Unless you consider these sources as such. If you do, there are plenty more to be obtained from a simple search.
"His lawyers already made such a suggestion and the judge ripped this idea to pieces."
Indeed. And a UN Special Commission disagreed. For whatever that is worth.
But then, its not like the UK to be in disagreement with international rulings, is it?
"Fuck the courts, don't we have "in the interest of national security" and "in the interest of the public"? Haven't we had those phrases used before when steamrolling over such minor details as "rule of the law"? :("
We can downvote this as much as we want, but we'd have to willingly forget the process of "extraordinary rendition" that was a part of our recent history. That happened, and we willingly took part.
Whatever we think of Assange, if you were to believe, as he does, that the US is out to get you, then maintaining a highly visible public profile like this is not a bad defence against being "disappeared".
Don't kid yourself that this doesn't happen. *IF* the US want it.
"Upvote from me. We need more options/variation."
Start a party? In principle, we should be able to do that....
"... about that accident you had recently ..."
Ways to get cold callers to strike you off their list quickly:
1. "Oh god, oh god, no. How did you know? I can still hear the screaming, and smell of burning flesh, oh the horror, please no. I don't want to remember! (cue screaming and weeping)"
2. "This is inspector Roberts of the CID. How did you get this number? What was your relationship to the deceased? How long have you had their details? Where were you at 1900hrs on Saturday evening? Can I take your full name and address to eliminate you from our enquiries. No, don't put the phone down...."
3. "Have you heard the good news about our lord and savior...? I'd like to read you some passages from our scriptures..."
4. "Oh! Hi! Its good to hear your voice. I've not talked to anyone in so long. (Pause). What underwear are you wearing today? is it red?......"
Commas are important, they can mean the difference between "At the weekend I helped my uncle, Jack, off his horse."
If this tech can be used for faking pr0n, then it can be used to fake other things too, can't it? Evidence of crime, evidence of alibi, propaganda, defamation, "fake" news....
In the hands of more sinister types than mere pr0n-mongers this could be extremely potent.
I was aged one when Armstrong landed on the moon. I'm told that I was kept awake to see it, but I don't remember.
My childhood was filled with the wonder and possibility of space travel. As I grew up in the seventies and eighties it seemed that within my life time the heavens would yield up to mankind and to science.
It didn't, and that made me into a more cynical adult than I might've been.
Today, I watched that launch and, more amazingly, the science-ficitonesque return of the boosters to Earth, and my hope was re-awakened. I might just believe that I'll see a Mars landing in my lifespan yet.
I'll be honest with you, as I also happen to be a huge Bowie fan, when I saw that mad car, with the comical dummy in it, orbiting the Earth to the strains of my favourite tracks and realized what it represented...
...I nearly wept.
"...meaning women need to get paid more per trip."
No, that's assuring equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. If operative A is spending 50% more time driving and thus is better at the task from practice, or from working unsociable hours, then there is no justification in giving operative B an artificial increase in pay to match operative A when operative B is not as good at the task and chooses not to work unsociable hours.
If you want to pursue the equality angle then the one valid point you put in there is a note about domestic demands. There is no good reason that such demands can't fall equally on male and female parents and is indeed a social trope that can be addressed (again, equality of opportunity; this time for men).
Also, please note its not women but those who *identify* as women, or would you choose to disadvantage males who identify as women? Tell you what, if I could get paid more for writing down on a job application that I identify as a woman, I'd do it.
We need to stop giving undue advantage to social groupings and start making sure everyone has the same opportunities to succeed regardless of gender and such.
"..going to go ahead with it anyway..."
Yep, because that way they can trumpet their achievements in doing something for the Mumsnet brigade, who are generally just as bloody clueless. I don't think the gov actually want a working technology for this; they just want to be seen trying to get it done and are quite happy to fail and throw their hands in the air because "interweb experts, eh? whatchagonnado? vote for us. at least we tried to protect you from terrorpedoes!".
A good question might be whether they consider society owes them anything, or whether effort is equated with reward in the workplace. You can further refine your search by asking if they have a pension, their own home, or have just took a payday loan for a night out drinking craft beers.
Also ask if they own, or know the function of, a pair of socks.
"...our democratically elected leaders.."
I think that's the bit we need to start doubting is true.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018