Re: Already Gone Binary?
I think you've mistaken this for the Daily Mail comments page...
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
Excuse the tangent, but when people say they're worried about robots/ computers/ immigrants "taking their jobs", what they actually mean is that they can see their income stream disappearing.
Under the current neo-liberal capitalistic setup, those who run the businesses are on a race to the bottom, driving down their business costs by getting the cheapest labour to maximise their profits which are then distributed to their share holders, meanwhile those who have lost their income have to rely on State Benefits (if there are any) or scratch out a living on a minimum wage job whilst a few at the top of the pile get richer and richer.
Douglas Adams summed this up nicely with the Magarathean Planet Builders who catered for the extremely rich "But this was perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was really poor - at least no one worth speaking of." Of course it ended up with so much wealth being concentrated in so few hands that the economy collapsed...
Naturally some (TW comes to mind) would argue that people are "better off" because goods become cheaper, but they don't become cheap enough to counterbalance the loss of income and, meanwhile, the wealth still flows upwards and does not "trickle down" to the people who will actually spend it, rather than salting it away in lucrative (for them) tax avoidance schemes.
So arguing about "professional classes hollowing themselves out" or their jobs being taken over by AIs is a bit of a red herring, what's important is whether money can be made to flow back down from the top such that the economy keeps running. If that doesn't happen, the rest of the argument is merely academic.
> I aint filling that in, I'm still furious that they leaked everyone's responses on the Filtering consultation
I don't know if you're joking or not, but a) AFAIR this one doesn't ask for your personal details and b) when you provide responses to a consultation you agree that, unless you specfically state otherwise, they will be made public.
> I'm actually surprised the questions are worded in a way that makes disagreement possible
Yes, that is a pleasant surprise, although the comment boxes are tiny with limited character input and, for one question, I had to tick "yes" to get access to the comment box on the next page as "no" would just have skipped it.
This is the link to the Consultation
I recommend everyone go to that page and point out that you disagree with a) their attempts to censor the internet and b the idea that adults should have to ask permission to look at adult content.
"Won't Someone Think of the Children" never results in good (or sensible) legislation.
Excuse the blatant piggy-back, but so far I've seen nothing that links to the actual consultation, so here it is:
Go there, fill it in, explain to them WHY them demanding the moon on a stick doesn't mean that anyone can deliver it and maybe, just maybe, we can stop this nonsense.
... or Carcassonne, Alhambra, Ticket to Ride and many others are much better than the obsolete "roll and move" of Monopoly.
Once you start playing games like these, you'll wonder why on earth Monopoly is still going after all this time and the only conclusion you can come to is "because people don't know any better".
Seriously, play some decent Euro Games (ones that don't involve screwing everyone else over and forcing them out of the game) and you'll never look back.
Ah, the good old revolving door! Step out of a job in a Government Department which has just pissed away millions of pounds (or whatever) of public money, straight into a job or "Directorship" with the company that all that money was paid to.
Of course it's just a co-incidence...
"...comply with strict terms and conditions covering the confidentiality and handling of data, security arrangements, and retention and use of the data.
"And when they don't and the entire database is left on an unsecured datastick in the back of a taxi or on a lap-top on a train we will definitely give them *at least* a stern finger-wagging and, if necessary, a quite sharp smack on the wrist whilst we Learn Lessons that will stop this from ever happening again (until the next time...)"
The word "gay" is, unsurprisingly, *not* a synonym for "stupid" or "worthless" or "unworthy" or any other such derogatory term.
Whenever I hear someone use it in that way, I ask what their name is: "Syntax Error"? Fine, let's substitute that instead...
"Emoji are pretty Syntax Error"
"Look at that, it's totally Syntax Error"
"That post above is so Syntax Error!"
> I still don't understand why this religion has so many 'followers' that can take offence from pictures.
I suggest you look at the history of censorship of paintings by the Christian Church where art showing Adam and Eve before the Fall had tree branches with convenient foliage added to conceal the "naughty bits" or male statues having their genitalia removed and stone fig-leaves added.
I don't like this any more than anyone else, but, regrettably, the more we start *telling* these people "you're doing it wrong", the more resistant they are going to be to change. Western interference in such affairs has never ended well.
> the problem isn't airports, it's London itself.
Exactly! It's like a black hole, the more it grows, the more it drags in everything else around it and, more importantly, takes money away from everywhere else.
There's more to the UK than London...
"...must be interoperable and the open standards framework and the principles it entails are extremely important,"
India has an incredible opportunity as an emerging market to avoid the mistakes which have come about elsewhere because of the piecemeal way the internet has grown up, provided they make sure that the big vested interests don't get their greedy hands on it and control it for their profits instead of for the benefit of the Indian people.
ADDENDUM: Oh and, PS: I have *no* objection to businesses making profits, the problem comes when the profits and dividends and bonuses are *all* they care about and screw the people they're trying to serve.
"... and you make that haystack massively bigger, it will mean that sometimes you won’t find that needle."
Something I've commented many a time in here.
Of course that doesn't mean that you won't *find* a needle (or, at least, someone^H^H^thing that *looks* like a needle) and you'll spend lots of resources dealing with that False Positive and probably ruining someone's life in the process until it turns out you made a mistake...
> if anyone is actually injured by a Christmas party hat then they will prosecute. That's why people are scared into making silly rules.
No, the HSE requires businesses to take "reasonable steps" to prevent accidents or injury.
They will only prosecute if there is evidence of, or reasonable grounds to suspect negligence.
"...to ask the Government to consult on ways to protect British citizens from GCHQ's bulk snooping and hacking powers, which are intended to be limited to “overseas-related” communications, and on ways to increase the Judicial oversight and decrease the Executive power when it comes to surveillance."
How, exactly, does this Committee "fail" to ask such important questions, unless there are members with a specific brief of "Make sure the Committee doesn't start asking awkward questions that will highlight what we're actually trying to do..."
What I'd have liked to have seen is for them to create two contributors (let's call them Alice and Bob, as is traditional) and get them to both submit the same code (with appropriate modifications so they're not obviously identical).
Do this a few times and in random order and see which gets accepted more often.
At least *someone* gets that the sort of scam is a waste of everybody's (except the lawyers') time!
Fine, let the companies sue for the *real* cost of their loss (ie what they'd get from a sale or rental of their product, but not get to parlay that into a shake-down with claims of "distribution" or other such nonsense.
EDIT ERROR IN THE ABOVE POST...
"that giving it all to FB would cripple any local attempts to do the same thing since FB could give it away for free for long enough to bankrupt any competition."
I managed to miss out a few words in the above after a cut-and-paste:
"that giving it all to FB would be a great idea, even though that would cripple any local attempts to do the same thing since FB could give it away for free for long enough to bankrupt any competition.
"The venture capitalist and Facebook board member Marc Andreessen"
That pretty much sums up what is going on here, Mr Andreessen, for all his fine words and logical fallacies is really only interested in the bottom line. He and Zuck have seen a lucrative market which is just ripe for the
fplucking with lots of customers who they want to get hooked on their product with a "free sample" knowing that if they can get in first, they'll have an almost guaranteed monopoly which they can exploit and sell to their advertisers.
This has *nothing* to do with benefitting the Indian people, nor is it that "Western activists" are "seeking to prohibit any free data services, which they consider fails their politically-correct definition of ‘net neutrality’", that's a total red herring, it is people who can see the risks of letting them control it and want to prevent that from happening.
It also has nothing to do with colonialism or nannying or thinking the Indian people are too stupid to understand, it's about making sure that the politicians and regulators don't decide (based on generous "campaign contributions" or any other such things) that giving it all to FB would cripple any local attempts to do the same thing since FB could give it away for free for long enough to bankrupt any competition.
Personally I don't think that's a good thing and Indian businesses should be allowed to develop their own products for the benefit of their own people.
> The recent Hatton Garden investigation relied heavily on CCTV and ANPR footage,
Good job it didn't rely on the burglar alarms that were switched off...
> Let's say in 3 years time that suspect is arrested on an unrelated crime but a vehicle registered to him for the past 5 years (after searching the database) shows he was at or near that scene at the time, whilst not conclusive it gives the Police the indication that it is worth investigating him further for that particular crime. Surely people see that too - no?
You (like many others) set up a hypothetical situation where, obviously, the "right" answer is the one that supports your position.
However that still does not justify speculatively holding on to all that data for all that time *just in case* it might be useful at some unspecified point in the future when there is the danger of all that data being *ab*used in ways that threaten our privacy and civil liberties.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - Sir William Blackstone 1755
> (1) If a track of number plates from an ANPR camera helped locate an abducted child, yay!
This sort of speculative argument is a main plank of the Police's
excuses explanation for why they want to keep all that data and snoop on us all.
But, like all the other such hypothetical scenarious and wiith all the ANPR data that's been collected already, has this *ever* happened...?
"Well, it's never happened yet, but it *could* possibly, one day"
It's not very convincing, yet people keep falling for it.
> There are far more erosions of privacy and infringement of human rights going on without worrying about this.
But each one *needs* to be highlighted and opposed and every time someone says "I don't have a problem with it", let alone "I have nothing to hide..." it's another victory for those who feel that only a 100% Surveillance State will make
their little empires us "safe".
> One day, I might change my mind. Or I might not.
Let me guess, you have Nothing To Hide (tm)...
"Excuse me, Mr TRT, a vehicle with your number plate was spotted at XYZ location, right next to where a serious offence of child abduction was committed. Do you have anything to prove that you *weren't* there? What's that you say? It's 300 miles away from your home? Doesn't matter, you have no alibi, therefore you are under arrest and, as part of our evidence gathering we'll take your DNA, sieze your phone, your computer and interview your neighbours and your co-workers and boss and make sure they know why we arrested you..."
> replacing them with excise and other consumption taxes
So your solution would be to tax practically *all* the income of the lowest paid (who cannot afford to save and need to spend most of what they earn just to keep a roof over their head and eat) whilst the highly paid get taxed on only a tiny fraction of their income whilst the rest of it gets shuffled off abroad into tax havens...
> in the end, all the idiotic plotting a scheming for naught
Would that that was definitely the case, but the fact that such an illiberal and clandestine power grab has already managed to get so far makes me think that whoever is behind this has already planned for this and will ensure that the votes go the "right" way for them.
> if there was ever a good rationale for taxation to benefit the poor, this is it. You can't avoid SOME positive effects on a population newly exposed to big pipes, right? Beats most other social spending anyway.
I can hear your teeth gritting from here on the other side of the pond...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019