Remind me...
... to change the combination on my luggage...
Spaceballs: The Coat
6899 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... there are two options:
1) They've won the War Against Terror
or:
2) Someone is desperately trying to draw attention away from the Ashley Madison hack.
Meanwhile, of course, all those sites with adults offering other services, such as actors, musicians, accountants, plumbers or even lawyers go on about their business because it's only SEX which causes the Yanks a problem.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, darling!" - Freddie Mercury.
I don't know about you, but I would be more worried about the OS owner being able to control what apps can or can't run on *MY* phone.
Sure, they can *tell* me that such and such an app has a vulnerability, but if they can stop a "bad" app from running, it's not a big step to stopping a good app for political or "security" purposes...
> How about we make that network neutral, by removing all rules for right of way, so that all road users are treated equally all the time.
You miss the point.
Imagine you're on a three lane Motorway and find that Lane 3 has been bought by the Ford Motor Company
That Lane has a 100mph speed limit but can *only* be used by people driving Ford Cars.
Meanwhile Lanes 1 and 2 have to take all the other traffic and have had their speed limits reduced to 60mph and even then you'll be lucky if you can do that because you've got "crawler races" with one HGV is trying to overtake another at 1mph faster.
*THAT* is what Net Neutrality is about, minus all the petty sneers about Arts Graduates and other such BS.
> If you take a view about what price content rights-holders must sell for
You miss the point. It is not about what price they must sell it for, it's that they can (and do) charge different prices based simply on which side of an arbitrary (and imaginary) line someone lives on.
Imagine you went into a shop to buy an item and they said "Sorry, you live in XYZ area, you can't buy from us at this cheaper price, you have to go to our shop nearest to you and pay a more expensive price". Would you say "Ok, that's fine"?
I doubt it, but that's what these companies want to have enshrined in law.
1) Make sure you've spent enough on wining and dining MPs and Civil Servants
2) Make sure you've offered enough Directorships which pay six figures for 24 hours work a year
3) Offer the moon on a stick whilst claiming it will only cost peanuts
4) Get your people to write a nicely vague contract with ambiguous terms that give you lots of get out clauses and golden lifeboats when you fail to deliver what you've promised
5) Profit!
John Lewis is a Partnership (hence the full name). All employees are *partners* in the business, hence they get a share of the money, unlike many (most?) capitalistic businesses where any profit dividend is only distributed to share holders, not the workers.
> JL and Co Op are owned by, respectively, the workers and the consumers. They're not capitalist organisations.
True. They have this crazy idea of giving money *back* to the people who make it for them and keeping prices down for people who pay for their goods instead of keeping it all for those at the top of the tree or giving it to shareholders whilst keeping wages as low as possible!
Lunatics, eh? Such a business model would never survive since 1844, would it?
> This needs at least two terms to clear up the mess, trying to get rid of the crap,
I think you mean flogging off the family silver to their rich mates (and give them tax breaks) whilst meanwhile screwing the workers and get them fighting amongst themselves and then retiring with lucrative directorships.
Trebles all round!
Apparently, it's Maths, not Economics. See Another Angry Voice for more about how "qualified" he is to be Chancellor...
> As far as I can tell, My Corbyn is exactly like anyone else on the Left, which is to say, all talk no trousers. When it comes down to it, there's never any detail as to how exactly all this will come about.
And yet we have the neo-liberal Right still claiming that they can cut their way to prosperity and make everyone "on average" better off by concentrating all the wealth in the hands of a few, whilst everyone else gets screwed.
Oh and, as someone said "As a member of the electorate, it is not up to me to make suggestions as to what he will do, but up to me to decide whether his policies are sound."
> To go after a multinational company you need a multinational attack.
So because you "heard him say that he would gather international support to change tax agreements" means he's not going to do it? Or maybe you haven't looked very hard.
From a recent speech he made, two policies on tax he wants to introduce:
"The introduction of a proper anti-avoidance rule into UK tax law.
"The aim of country-by-country reporting for multinational corporations"
I think "country-by-country reporting" sounds like he's doing exactly what you say.
> "on average" people are better off under the budget
Which is about as meaningful as saying that "on average nobody has two legs" because there are people who have fewer than two.
Telling people who are working in Minimum Wage jobs or on Zero Hours contracts that they should be happy because, "on average" people are better off, whilst they're living virtually hand to mouth with little money for luxuries, let alone to be able to save for a mortgage etc is not going to wash.
Still, as Douglas Adams said "Nobody was poor, at least nobody worth speaking of."
"Just where is this great economic boom for Great Britain with a Right-wing, neo-liberal austerity loving chancellor like George Osborne going to come from instead of concentrating the majority of the wealth in the off-shore bank accounts of a small minority?
"It all goes very quiet at that point."
FTFY
(PS I'll say again that I have no more love for Labour or Corbyn than I do for the Tories and Cameron or the Lib Dems and... err, whoever, but until we have a bigger choice of people to vote for than the Blue Tories, the Red Tories or the Purple Tories or the Yellow idiots who got shafted by the Tories, then nothing is going to improve.)
> Or do you subscribe to the notion that if you don;t have to bring in the insurers no harm done?
Ah, but you see Matt wants you *personally* to prove to *his* standards that you have suffered "harm" from this and, if you can't, he can declare victory!
It seems he's finally found a set of goalposts he likes...
> Please go do some actual reading
Certainly. From the article *YOU* linked to...
[quote]
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.
[/quote]
And
[quote]
The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
[/quote]
And:
[quote]
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991
[/quote]
RTFA:
> By default AirDrop is restricted to "contacts only" to but this is changed to "everyone" as soon as a user accepts a message from a previously unknown contact. From that point on users run the risk of being sent all sorts of undesirable content by strangers.
Thank you for that post.
Of course the fact is that, just with groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous etc, there are ways of helping people come to terms with their desires and control them with the support of others, but, regrettably, they come up against the twin problems of the NIMBYs who would say "well, yes, I suppose these people should be able to get treatment, but not anywhere within 100 miles of a child" and the Tabloid Media, who would take great delight in "outing" any such organisation and broadcasting its location and membership to every witch-burner and vigilante out there.
"Nasty, horrific, criminal stuff."
ORLY?
Samantha Fox and other models like her posed for photographs when they were 16. This was perfectly legal and above board with no exploitation, nothing horrific and no criminality.
Then, some years ago, the Government of The Vicar of St Albions decided that this sort of thing wasn't acceptable to their prudish moralistic standards and decided to redefine "child" from "someone under 16" to "someone under 18".
So now such images are classed as "child pornography" or, if you prefer "abuse".
Of course our witch-burning tabloids were delighted that images of someone who is over the legal age of consent for sexual activity were now criminalised...
"Pay or conditions a bit over market average will enable you to pick and choose who you employ [...] It's relative wages that count there"
In other words "Be happy you're getting a bit more money than those other poor bastards and don't rock the boat, otherwise you could be back at the bottom of the pile."
Meanwhile it's trebles all round in the board room...
*cough* Cui Bono? *cough*