Because objective reality is politically incorrect.
Expect a lot of down votes.
52 posts • joined 4 Apr 2016
Because objective reality is politically incorrect.
Expect a lot of down votes.
True, when you are a nominally communist state with an unrepentant history of mass murder within living memory, on a scale unmatched in human history, it is amazing what you can force through
Well other than the whole pervasive corruption on a scale few Brits can even begin to fathom, yeah sure, pretty much the same. Oh... but drier? Rather depends where you are, Africa is a large place & many parts are more or less constantly soggy and smell of rotting plant litter and garbage ;-)
"The document is an embarrassment"
A critique like yours that is loaded with ad hominem remarks is the true embarrassment. You have clearly never heard the phrase "play the ball, not the man".
"I've read the full memo not just the synopsis"
Well that puts you in a tiny minority.
I read a couple critiques of this thing, then actual read the memo... and then went back to check I had read the correct memo because it did not have much in common with what the outraged protests were ascribing to it.
Odious behaviour, for sure. But that should not trump Freedom of Association. The state should not be involved in forcing people to do business with other people. However as AirBnB can set their own T&C, it should be perfectly fine for them to kick out anyone violating their T&C.
So this seems to be suggesting that the problem with algorithms is they are not reflecting the *correct* political biases? That they might actually reflect reality in unpalatable ways, for example by daring to notice that in the real world fewer women are less interested in STEM for perfectly understandable preferences?
And you are right to be uneasy, Net Neutrality, particularly as structured in the United Snakes, make it harder for new market entrants to get a toe hold with some innovative new approach to things, so naturally large established players just love these regulations to bits (see what I did there?).
Seriously, how did people not see that from the beginning?
"That claim would not stand up in court as the koran (and bible and, and ad nauseam) actually contains the items you mention."
Your faith in courts is touching. Once the state passes a law against hurt feelings (i.e. branding free speech "hate speech"), the truth of a statement becomes irrelevant, only what emotional effect the statement has.
The only fake news that will be tolerated it official state sanctioned fake news. And of course the state is a fit institution to determine what people can say on-line, particularly the German state, what could possibly go wrong with that?
"Good luck with that! Facebook / Google / Microsoft / Uber make up their own rules / write their own laws"
And that is as it should be. If you don't like those companies, don't use their services (I only use Uber in that list).
" I suggest you look up the following terms: "empathy", "humane" and "golden rule"."
The actual issues here are "who pays for someone's health issues?" & "are they allowed to actually assess the risks they are agreeing to underwrite?". The money has to come from somewhere.
At twice the price? No thanks, I'll stick with Uber.
"Sir Tim Berners-Lee refuses to be King Canute"
No, he is indeed being King Canute and used the King Canute analogue correctly, pointing out that he and W3C do not have the power to ban things people seem to think they have.
As there is nothing 'ethical' about government itself... various aspects of government may or may not be desirable, but supporting government (via tax or whatever) is not a matter of 'ethics'.
"Corporations and individuals should stop trying to use laws and procedures to avoid taxes."
Why? Only an idiot allows more of their money to be appropriated by the state than they have to. The state uses laws to tax people, people use laws to minimise that tax. Nature of the issue.
But it *does* affect their bottom line actually, even if some are too blind too see it.
"So, a company that makes money spying on you, has been found to have a backdoor in one of its free apps to spy on you?"
Except it hasn't, it was just another Guardian "fake news" story. Did you actually read the whole article?
What? Get with the program! Yes, China may be unilaterally annexing a huge chunk of the South China Sea but TRUMP is the problem! Can you not read all the insightful comments by the geostrategic geniuses here?
Giving people other people's money in return for doing nothing beyond existing? Oh yes, what could possibly go wrong with that?
Excellent way to ensure no over-seas money get involved in any UK based investments. And also a great way to ensure investors in UK keep their money well away from the Sceptred Isles & safely overseas, never to touch these shores if they want to invest in various things and would rather not get taxes for just moving the money.
People who have a lot of money are almost as mobile as their money: if you make it expensive for them to move that money, they will either move it before the law gets imposed, and then probably move themselves as well. And good luck implementing such a tax at a global level as the places that do not reap huge benefits for avoiding such foolishness. Merchantalism was cutting edge thinking in the 16th century, but now it suggests a breathtaking lack of understanding how modern wealth creation actually works..
I was planning on doing the same for the BBC and Guardian
Ireland is toast if that happens. Northern Europe and France want a high tax cartel but it is hard to see how that is in Ireland's interests
There is no "lesser evil" in the next US election, just two qualitatively different Greater Evils
I too have stopped going to the USA due to the hassle of getting through the border, but I hope my comment does not mark me as a complete oaf in the way yours marks you.
You mean people still willingly travel to the USA? I have lots of friends there but I just wait for them to visit me, or just use Skype, as it is just not worth the hassle of getting felt up with some barely intelligible officious drone with a below average IQ to get into the country. There are plenty of other places to visit for a great deal less effort.
My viewing history of the BBC is nothing whatsoever. Pity I still have to pay for them though.
But if you have a TV in the UK you are paying for it regardless even if you do not watch it.
"but that the programmes the BBC chooses to make are those for which it has the largest number of people wanting to watch?"
If so many people want to watch what they produce, why are they funded by a tax also taken from people who do not want to watch the BBC?
Best solution: abolish anachronistic tax funded BBC entirely, data problem solved. In any case they have no data on my viewing as I never use their services. Pity I have to pay for them regardless though.
"Or shoot a wild boar ... they may be varmints, but they sure taste good!"
Truth! Occasionally do that in Croatia. Best tasting meat ever!
A "robot" is just a machine and machines have been a facet of manufacturing for a very long time. Health and safety laws and minimum wage regulations (and other taxes on job taxes like social security) motivate companies to get rid of human workers *entirely* as the technology becomes available, because that is what state regulations are incentivizing companies to do. Of course that might also put a few lawyers at Pinsent Masons out of a job as well, but that is just a happy consequence of automation rather than its primary objective.
"You can see why the medical practitioners and the police are very concerned."
Who cares? Since when can medical practitioners and the police punish a man without either sectioning him under the Mental Health Act or convicting him of a crime? The "concerns" of the police and medical practitioner is utterly irrelevant or we *are* living in a Police State.
Indeed, when perverse incentives are provided, people act perversely. That is why so much "well meaning" regulation ends up having the opposite effect to that imagined by the people who propose it, or at least assorted other highly undesirable effects.
So serious gaming PCs will be illegal? Ah the joys of central planning.
But, well what? It is a full on propaganda outlet.
Woah you are so going to get a lot of down votes for pointing that out.
Yes Milo might be a pain, but being a pain on the right seems makes you "baffling" apparently, whereas being a pain on the left just makes you edgy ;-)
"Normally parents admonish their children for throwing their toys out of the pram."
That really does nail it.
"Taxation isn't coercion"
Oh, good to know! I must remember to send a letter Her Majesty's Government that as taxation isn't coercion, I shall not be sending them any more money. As they will not want to coerce me, I suppose they will just sigh and adjust their spending accordingly.
Exactly! That would be vastly more effective than yet another layer of turgid regulations and qualification designed (in fact) to keep out innovators and protect established players.
"The trouble is we don’t yet have a good regulatory structure that might be applied to the IoT."
And there never will be.
The notion something as intrinsically clumsy as state regulation is the answer to such problems is not borne out by history. With state regulation you get the all the downside of the largest and most bureaucratic big companies with the added 'joy' of sovereign immunity, even more remote faceless indifference and about as much ability to quickly change direction as a train on rails. Regulations will be designed so that once (if) the IoT gets going, it locks in the position of existing players and keeps out "dangerous" innovators.
And Boris, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Upvoted... but expect a lot of down votes for stating the obvious.
The people wailing about "interference" are confused: the BBC *is* a political creature, how can it not be? It is funded by taxes coercively taken from people who watch TV even if they NEVER watch the BBC, so why should anyone expect such an body to be above politics? The BBC is part of the state, because of how it is funded and set up.
Just abolish this ludicrous anachronism completely and the problem goes away.
Hahaha! You are going to get such grief from the state-fetishists for that remark!
It must be great to know what is in the interests of poor people who want to borrow money so much better than they do.
You have just made a very rational comment stating a self evident truth. I expect you will be down-voted really a lot.
People who lend to people who pose a high risk of defaulting should not be able to price that into the loan? Your solution is presumably to not allow poor people (i.e. people with a high credit risk) to loaned money, because you know what is in their interests better than they do presumably.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017