Most news publications, with the exception of the BBC, do so to make money. Mostly from advertising and partly from subscription. There is a market for news, however loose the definition. There is no monopoly. Therefore there is no need for taxpayers' money to be thrown at a non-existent problem, especially not yet-another-QUANGO.
162 posts • joined 23 Jan 2011
The UK's Cairncross Review calls for Google, Facebook to be regulated – and life support for journalism
Governments are crap at picking technologies
So they install fibre everywhere at taxpayers' expense just as the rest of the world moves on to something else, say mesh radio of some kind. When demand outstrips supply the price goes up, encouraging new investment in the supply side. Having the government plan things is a horrible idea.
"Hayek was right, the only calculating machine we have capable of planning the economy is that economy itself with its pricing mechanism." @worstall
It's all about control
"the increasing number of journeys made by vehicles it doesn't control"
How exactly does it intend to control where taxis go? Surely that's down to the passenger! And what about all the privately owned vehicles, not for hire, by far the majority of traffic in London? Seems a rather specious argument.
The reporting to police business is a bit odd too. Surely it is the victim or witnesses who do the reporting, not the people who run an hailing app!
The inclination of the orbit is way off, which is why they probably lost comms.
"TLEs are out - the Ariane objects are in 230 x 43160 km x 20 degree geotransfer instead of the intended 250 x 45000 x 3 deg, so inclination totally off but height pretty much fine"
Re: If somebody does not understand...
I've taught and helped maybe a dozen 'silver surfers', but one lady defeated me. All she wanted to do was transfer photos from her camera to her computer and organise them. During the first session she seemed to be doing well, taking notes to remind herself. Got a call a couple of weeks later and she was struggling to find and open Windows Explorer. After two more teaching sessions I had to admit defeat. Her recall after only a few minutes was gone, even with her notes.
Supply and demand
"Some 15,010 people started ICT apprenticeships in 2016/17, down from 16,020 the previous year and a fall of 3,510 since 2011/12, the government body found."
So they have successfully increased the supply and now the demand is falling. Do we really need the NAO to tell us that?
Re: If you build them...
"what happens when your infernal combustion engine wears out?"
Current vehicle design is such that the engine should last the life of the car, if properly maintained. So when the engine needs replacement it is generally uneconomic to do so and the vehicle is scrapped. This is factored into the depreciation costs, the assumption is that a new engine won't be required for the foreseeable future.
There are not nearly enough EVs in the used car market for this calculation to be made, so it is a big unknown. Leasing companies will need to work this out as this affects their rates.
"They anticipate a period like the Great Depression, when agricultural innovations meant fewer workers were needed to produce food, reducing agricultural prices and incomes, and thereby driving down demand for urban products."
Of all the causes mooted for the depression agricultural innovation isn't one of them!
If that's the basis of their argument then they're on completely the wrong tack!
"Most locations (59%, n = 37) were sampled in only one year, 20 locations in two years, five locations in three years, and one in four years" also "Our data do not represent longitudinal records at single sites, suitable to derive location specific trends"
Looking at Table 1 it seems the sampling was very irregular and sporadic. I'm not sure how you can draw any conclusions from this! And in Fig 2, is it my eyes or does the black trend line appear to be right at the top of the blue bars?
Re: Positive externality
Yes there are externalities, but it not for the government to arrive at a technical solution. To reduce congestion you introduce road pricing. To reduce pollution you legislate for emissions. Spending tax-payers' money on something they think might be a solution isn't the way to do it.
You only invest in something if you think there will be a good chance of making a profit. This is why governments shouldn't be investing in things, they are pretty clueless about what might or might not work. Governments need to look out for the externalities. If you want less pollution then legislate for emissions limits. Don't try to second guess what technology might achieve those limits, let those with skin in the game (manufacturers) work it out.
Pythagoras noted a number of special triangles, such as 3:4:5, that have integer ratios in base 10.
The Babylonians had similar special cases that can be written in base 60 as integers as shown on the tablet. Very similar techniques.
The breakthrough with sin/cos/tan is that any triangle can be described and calculated because they are continuous transcendental functions.
So is the BBC any different to any other similar sized organisation? What about the top echelons of the NHS for example, or the tax office? Or is it just 'let's have a go at Auntie' kind of slow news week?
Re: "with 58 per cent admitting to having used a ripper"
OK, found the link to the report but it doesn't mention file-sharing amongst the older generation. So where does this come from?
"Fathers can now add "file sharing" to the list of things they do to embarrass their teenage children - alongside dancing badly in public.
"P2P file sharing, which peaked over a decade ago, is now the preserve of middle-aged and older internet users"
"with 58 per cent admitting to having used a ripper"
Using a ripper is one thing, file sharing is something else. I use a ripper to store choonz on a streamer that's entirely within my home. This is simply so I can find tracks without having to find the right CD.
The article really needs a link to the original reports as the story seems to have mangled things rather.
From experience (my family were nearly wiped out) people's reactions are not always in favour of the 'minimise damage' ones. When a car pulls out from a turning on your side of the road, for example, many people will instinctively swerve to avoid it, ignoring oncoming traffic with double the impact speed. Surely the test of the decision-making algorithms is how much better do they do than the average human driver?
Government Cash = Taxpayer Cash
"government would have to stump up the cash"
Why do people keep thinking the gov't has all this cash at it's disposal? It is our money! But yes, the best way is to provide vouchers to people who can't afford the full price of the service, rather than trying to force providers to do what isn't profitable.
Most feared words...
"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help."
As others have said, we need less interference from the Gov't rather than more. Let Industry do it's own thing. As demand for AI increases so salaries go up, so University applications for AI increase, AI depts at Unis get bigger, and so on. The Government tried to second guess how to reduce carbon emissions by subsidising selected technologies, instead of just introducing a carbon tax (as the Canadians are about to) and let the markets find their own solutions.
Think about it...
Whose money is actually going to HMRC with corporation tax? It's the consumers'. Corporation tax is just an indirect way of taxing the consumer. We're already paying income tax and NI on what we earn and VAT on what we spend, why do we have to pay a chunk of the before-tax amount as well?