This is not...
... your phone.
We are just kindly giving you permission to use it, but only in ways that *we* approve of...
6905 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
... your phone.
We are just kindly giving you permission to use it, but only in ways that *we* approve of...
... the Government are still completely clueless about the whole issue, but they think that if they stamp their little feet and demand the moon on a stick, the service providers can somehow wave a magic want and make all their dreams come true...
(And, of course, the Government justifies all of this because of "Paedos and Terrorists and Drug Dealers, Oh my!")
> Replying to 300 or 400 emails at a time is easy if your software lets you do a select-all-and-reply-with-this-text to ensure everyone gets their own personal "your email is important to us" message.
Especially when the reply they send back simply parrots the Party Line which completely ignores all comments that anyone has made...
> The problem is that MP's (correctly) believe that they don't care enough to do anything more than tweet. Like vote against them.
No, the MPs (correctly) believe that it doesn't matter a damn how many people complain or write petitions or stage demonstrations because of the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules...
> seemed worded to be slanted towards a particular outcome.
Of course it was, just like every other "consultation". Governments (of whatever stripe) know what response they want to get, so they write their consultation accordingly to get that response.
38 Degrees tried to spoil their game by pointing out the flaws and suggesting how people could reply to give the answers that the people wanted instead and the Government decided to pick up their ball and go home because we wouldn't play by their (biased) rules.
> all emails get blocked now so every future campaign will simply be invisible.
So even if all of those e-mails were from unique individuals and not simply an attempt to astroturf the voting, the attitude would be "you couldn't write something different, so fuck you, we're not going to pay any attention to you"?
Hmm, "Hands up everyone who disagrees with this... Ok you all put your hands up identically, so we'll ignore you and go ahead anyway."
"...scrapped the consultation, and has started it all over again."
And there we see the attitude of certain people (and our Government) writ large: If you hold a consultation and don't get the answer you want, just claim that the answers are "unrepresentative" and you can go back and try again until you *do* get an answer you like.
I was one of that 92% and the fact of the matter is that the Government's "consultation" on the BBC (like so many others) was (deliberately?!) badly written, misleading and rigged to try to steer people towards responding in a certain way.
The fact that people refused to respond as the Government wanted shows the power of organisations like 38 Degrees, but it seems that there are those who prefer to denigrate their efforts with sneering comments and misrepresentative implications, based simply on their personal opinions.
Clarke debunked that story personally in his book The Lost Worlds of 2001.
HAL stands for "Heuristically-programed ALgorithmic" computer. He also mentioned that they'd had a fair bit of help from IBM in the making of the film, so it's unlikely they'd be taking digs at them.
... to quote the penultimate line from Colossus: The Forbin Project where the US and the USSR both create super computers to defend their countries and prevent war.
It ends with the computers join forces to become "World Control" and obey their programing by taking over and thereby absolutely preventing war but, as World Control says, "freedom is just an illusion" and says how mankind will advance under its guidance
Forbin angrily replies "NEVER!"
So which would *you* have? Peace under computer control or war under human control...?
> Apparently some footage from "The Shining" made it into the U.S. theatrical cut. Who knew?!
I did, but I'm a major BR geek :-)
As to the nature of Deckard, Dave 126 points out, in the versions without the "happy ending" of them driving off into the sunset (and with the Unicorn Dream included), there's a big hint as Rachael walks into the lift. There are other hints in the film too.
Not to mention those spine-chilling lines "You've done a man's job, Sir" and "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does...?"
... no doubt "Lessons have been learned"...
And plenty of low-paid workers who can be easily replaced...
Which says (I quote)
"A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole"
There is *nothing* there that or the following sections which says *anything* about "maximising profits". In fact maximising profits could well contravene some of the requirements that follow, for instance "(c) the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others" and "(e) the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct"
A perfect example of this is how Tesco have recently been fined for deliberately delaying payments to suppliers in order to make their figures look better.
> What you can't do is act to consciously diminish shareholder value in the pursuit of some other objective. Not without explicit shareholder approval anyway.
> Google is a publicly traded company and it *needs* to maximise profits (and therefore minimise taxes)
The nearest I can find to anything that backs up your claim is corporate directors are bound by "fiduciary duties and standards" which include "acting to promote the value of the corporation for the benefit of its stockholders." but that only says to "promote the value", not "maximise profits".
If you wanted to take the "maximise profits" to its extreme, then companies would be lobbying to be allowed to use slave labour because that's cheapest...
> *That* is what Google is doing, exploiting the permanent establishment rules put into the law to *aid small companies*.
Because Google is such a small company that they *need* to use those rules since they can't afford to operate without them...
> I do the insult indirect to Murphy and Sikka. Up above Andrew has gone for the insult direct: "innumerati".
Which others have already addressed.
> And you want to shout at me about it?
No, I want you to argue in a way that does credit to your points, rather than sneering like a teenager because you think that makes your arguments better.
You could also look up Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
You fail to comprehend the scale of what is going on.
This isn't just a matter of a few thousand quid here or there, it is money running into the millions and billions. At what point do you say "hmm, actually I think having enough money to buy a small country, is sufficient..."?
I suggest, AC, that you go back and look at the last lot of election results, because you'll see that the majority of us *DID NOT* vote for them, they got about 37% of the votes which was actually only 24% of the electorate.
The fact is that the Tories only got around 600,000 more votes than they did previously, but because of our broken electoral system, that was somehow parlayed into a "majority".
Until that gets fixed, we're going to keep getting Buggins' Turn governments with no actual change happening.
> Reading Tim Worstall on this topic is very interesting-
Reading Tim Worstall in Forbes is just like reading him in El Reg. If his arguments are so clever and cogent, why does he have to continually resort to ad hominem sneers?
Take his conclusion: "who would you rather get your public policy from? A politician, an accounting professor and a suburban accountant turned one fifth of a professor? Or an actual world expert on the economics of tax systems?" He's using blatant NLP techniques and dodgy debating tactics (eg Poisoning the Well ) to denigrate those he disagrees with and influence the reader into accepting his viewpoint, but if his points and conclusions were as valid as he believes, such behaviour simply wouldn't be necessary.
He also claims that what Google et al are doing is "making us all richer", well, I'm sure it's making people like *him* richer, because they're the ones who can afford to own and trade shares in such big companies, but for the rest of us "little people", we're the ones who are seeing the money flow ever upwards and precious little of it tricking back downwards.
Still, that's not his (or Google's) problem, is it?
> surely it's even more mass to have to accelerate
Clarke fiddled this one a bit by having the ship's drive use "Zero Point" energy.
> hitting a thick surface like an ice shield would absorb much much more of its energy vaporising an area maybe 70 to 80 times its size and also creating a very large explosion from the resulting superheated steam rapidly expanding.
Ok, but explosions tend to take the path of least resistance, ie I'd think that the steam would expand forwards, rather than backwards and, of course, given the cold of deep space, it would probably then tend to freeze back onto the shield, with only some loss.
> we need a probe that can last at least 36 years of interstellar travel. Be able to travel at 10% of the speed of light (avoiding any debris along the way...)
I wonder just how feasible (and how protective) the Ice Shield which Arthur C Clarke used in The Songs of Distant Earth would be at these speeds.
Well, not yet...
The Government are currently "Consulting" on Prostitution with the Terms of Reference which say:
"The Home Affairs Committee is launching an inquiry into the way prostitution is treated in legislation. In particular, the inquiry will assess whether the balance in the burden of criminality should shift to those who pay for sex rather than those who sell it."
Note that last couple of lines. There is no "burden of criminality" simply for being a prostitute, just some stupid laws about a brothel involving more than one woman at an address or someone employed as security being counted as a pimp, but somehow this consultation is assuming (or implying) that there is or soon will be one...
There are innumerable other escort sites out there, all of which operate similar business models and all of which are easy to find with the most basic of searches, so *why* was this one singled out?
"...would be more compliant than that of their southern colleagues."
Hmm, it seems that these particular Custodes are Custodieting* themselves very well and acting in a sensible and responsible manner.
Obviously, therefore, they need "proper oversight" to ensure that they
keep doing this stop wasting a valuable resource in the fight against [Terrorists | Drug Dealers | Paedophiles]**
* Yes, so what...? ;-)
** Delete as appropriate for whatever press release is being issued.
... well, anything we like, basically, because it will probably all be done through Statutory Instruments which let us change the laws as we see fit without needing to tell anyone about the changes until they're done...
Way to totally miss the point.
There are people out there who want to produce films for niche markets, often in the adult fetish genres, but the cost of getting BBFC classification is so expensive and the market sufficiently small that it would be impossible to make a profit on these films.
Consequently you get the ridiculous situation of these films being available everywhere, *except* in the UK because of the "protection racket" that says "either you get BBFC classification or we prosecute you for selling uncertificated material".
But don't worry, they're thinking of the children by protecting them from buying this filth...
Oh great! Ruin the suspense for us all, won't you?
What on earth is the point of watching it now...???
I hope there's a Directors Commentary to go with it, just in case we miss a clever in-joke or homage.
"Yes. Well, everyone but *us*, of course..."
* * * * *
A TEAM of online experts will be recruited in Hampshire in a scheme designed to crack down on the menace of cyber crime.
Home secretary Theresa May was at the Forensic Innovation Centre in Portsmouth, which is at the forefront of the fight against digital crime, as the pilot was launched.
* * * * *
Of course note that important word "volunteer", because obviously they can't afford to *pay* people to do this...
Take a long hard look at Mr Boggins the old Caretaker and see if he owns a spooky mask...
(Mine's the one with the "Meddling Kids" badge)
Perhaps you can get it from the Met Office?
... the Government are claiming that unemployment rates are falling, but FOI requests reveal that much of that is due to people's benefits being sanctioned which means that they're not classed as "unemployed and claiming benfits", even though they're not getting jobs:
... did deliberately and wilfully close his eyes and refuse to look into the camera when instructed to do so, thus denying us access to his files...
> One of the few things Microsoft don't slurp by default
Well *there's* a surprise, boys and girls!
Don't forget, this is the government which has just passed a monumentally stupid and represesive law to ban legal highs (excluding, of course, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco) despite the fact that two of those three have been responsible for more deaths and suffering and long-term illnesses than everything else put together.
"...and empires that can be built, then the military (aided by Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and other contractors) will find it."
Come on, El Reg, that's supposed to be 231539821.9338 Bulgarian Funbags or 158.3927 Olympic sized swimming pools...!
... but there's all these commercial interests
paying us lobbying us to let them snoop on everything you do monitor activities anonymously, because that information can be sold on can be used to improve their services...
... whilst I jack in to my Ono Sendai Cyberspace 7
(Mine's the one with the Mirrorshades in the pocket)
... she fell over when she was doing the cleaning in the nude...
Remind me to change the combination on my luggage!
(Mines the one with the Dark Helmet...)
... on the article, I just wanted to say that, for once, I actually liked the Header Image :-)
What? You mean like can happen in the UK? Damn those extremists...!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018