Posts by DavCrav 3894 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Nov 2007
"All of those arguments - especially the drunk driving one - can be used to support gun ownership. For the record I support personal gun ownership by people who have not proven themselves unsuitable."
Sort of. Here the argument is that TOR provides an important service for many people and can help people express themselves the world over, and balanced against that, the fact that some people will use it to do bad things, is not enough justification to ban it.
For guns, the first part of the balancing act is much lighter, and the other side much heavier: guns are incredibly dangerous objects, leading in part to the United States being one of the most violent and murderous societies in the developed world. (The US has a murder rate of 4.7/100000, compared with the UK and France at 1.0/100000.) The freedom arguments are much weaker: privacy online and being able to own a particular object are significantly different.
In the end it's another balancing act, as is almost every decision of this kind.
Oh, while I think about it, anyone who says that the reason they should be allowed to gun is because it's in the Constitution is producing a stupid argument: firstly, it isn't in the Constitution, it's in an Amendment; secondly, the right to own slaves is in the Constitution, but most people would agree that isn't a reasonable thing now; thirdly, if we are talking about whether something should be legal or not, stating that it is legal is not an argument.
"but the idea that it was a play on words is not just me (see, for example, ..."
That's an interesting link, thanks for it. I couldn't find it when I looked. It has no references, alas, but some of the reasons for other car companies are clear. I'm a bit concerned about their reasoning for Jaguar (formerly the Swallow Sidecar Company) changing its name from SS Cars. A direct contemporaneous quotation from the founder: "Unlike S.S. the name Jaguar is distinctive and cannot be connected or confused with any similar foreign name.", in the Times suggests that reasoning, but the date of this change -- March 1945 -- suggests that it wasn't the German SS that they were trying to avoid, as presumably the SS were well known in Britain before 1945. However, I'm not much of a historian, and am not willing to put in the hours looking through archives at the BL or Bod to become one.
"When do we get to win?"
Compare your standard of living to those of twenty and forty years ago. Easy way to do this: watch a TV show from that era. Somewhere life got a lot better, but it isn't always obvious where. Much of the improvement is what £1 can buy you. Just take computers for example: I bought my first IBM PC in 1998, for £1000, and it has a 133MHz processor, 16MB of RAM and 1.6GB hard drive space. A decade before that I had a Spectrum 128K +2, which boasted an integrated tape deck, plastic keys rather than rubber keys, and more than twice as much RAM as its predecessor, at 128KB rather than 48KB.
So what do we see now: a normal desktop PC costs about £500ish, so prices have halved. But obviously a computer is not twice as cheap as it was then, it's a tiny fraction of the price that it was in 1988: the sector has experienced deflation of 99% or more.
My new fridge-freezer arrives tomorrow, after fifteen years or so with the last one. The one I'm buying cost the same price as the one I have, but uses half the energy. My vacuum cleaner cost the same as the first Dyson my family bought a long time ago, but this one cleans the floors by itself.
This is where the quality of life improves, not through pay rises leading to being able to buy more of the same stuff, but through improvement to the things that we buy.
"Both names are taken from the Latin for "manufactured", so it's all down to whether the manufacturer knew what they were doing. I suspect we know more about making cars than we do about macro-economics."
FIAT = Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino. Do you have any evidence that it was a play on words, like the PATRIOT act, for example? I did a brief Google search but found none.
And fiat in Latin is more "let it be done" than manufactured, hence the English word "fiat", which is where fiat currency actually comes from.
This comment is more just in case people assume your facts were correct; I wasn't trying to denigrate the joke. Also, Nylon doesn't come from New York and London, humans don't only use 10% of their brain, they always use 100% of it, and everybody has known the world was round for thousands of years: they actually knew how big it was, which is why everyone thought Columbus was stupid, and he was, because he would have died if America wasn't there. You aren't supposed to prick sausages before cooking, you actually attract more flies with vinegar than with honey, and more English words fail the 'i before e except after c' rule than pass it.
"QE magically avoids inflation ...
... because we don't include asset price inflation in the headline numbers.
e.g. While the economy is still very fragile shares reached record highs."
I think that's a good thing. Inflation is meant to represent cost of living. So mortgage repayments should maybe be in there, but this has the problem that raising interest rates to dampen inflation actually causes inflation in the short term, so we like to separate those out and just have two rates. We might also like to separate out other things and have a collection of inflation numbers, representing sectors of society, but fundamentally, inflation measure how fast prices are rising in the economy.
Things like bonds and shares are not goods and services in the real economy, and so shouldn't be contained in a measure of inflation: they are not consumed, and are merely traded, so increases in their prices, while they can cause problems for an economy, don't factor in to this magic MV=PQ equation that we learn at school.
"Someone needed to say it.
Not sure that Wena is a great name. I keep having phrases pop into my mind like:
I love my Wena.
I am always playing with my Wena.
Would you like to touch my Wena?
My dog will not stop licking my Wena!
Oh my God! My Wena has stopped working!
I am so, so, very sorry. Let the down votes commence."
I'm sure you also had fun at the launch of the Nintendo Wii. I like playing with my Wii, etc.
"In practice I seem to recall it is undecidable - you either say you are working within a system where sets can contain themselves (ZFC) where the ZF refers to Zermelo and Fraenkel and the C stands for 'Choice' (as in the Axiom of), or you say that you aren't."
I just want to say this again, in case people read this and think it is true.
A set can never contain itself under any extension of ZF.
This is Russel's paradox, and led to the development of ZF, which set out what can and can not be a set, specifically to forbid something like this from becoming a set. If you want to work with non-well founded sets, which in computer science you often do, you have to work inside a different axiomatic system, and be very careful, as traps abound. But then traps abound in normal ZFC, such as Banach--Tarski, the space-filling curve, and not being able to swap integral and summation signs.
"Yes, as far as I know (which admittedly isn't very far), DavCrav's claim is incorrect under any version of ZF. ZF doesn't formalize the notion of classes. Wikipedia says "In some extensions of ZFC, objects like R [Russel's set-of-all-sets-that-contain-themselves] are called proper classes". But that usage isn't universal.
I don't think the AoC is required under ZF for sets to contain themselves in general (that is, sets can contain themselves under ZF and ZFC), but I may well be wrong about that."
Yes, you are wrong. There is no model of ZF in which there is a set consisting of all sets, because it wouldn't satisfy the axiom of separation. Therefore it cannot exist in any (consistent) extension of ZF, such as ZFC, ZF+CH, and anything else. Under intensional dependent type theory one can do better, but that's still under development.
So the object containing all sets, or the object containing all ordinal numbers, etc. can never be a set. It is called a proper class in general mathematical parlance, but it is not constructible in first-order logic. But then, lots of things aren't constructible there, that's why we don't always use it. It's nice to have Cat, for example.
(Source: me, a professional pure mathematician.)
"But good luck to the Indian Supreme Court if it thinks it can enforce a fine upon the global profits of a foreign company."
I don't see why not. A jurisdiction can level a fine of any amount they want. For example, the US government frequently levels fines on foreign companies well above 10% of global profit.
The EU has a similar law.
"Thought experiment: what if ten other legal systems imposed a "10% of global profits" fine - would they decide who misses out with quick game of "rock, scissors, paper"?"
The company wouldn't make profit that year?
"because everyone wanted to go to http://www.foundem.co.uk/"
Sorry, but Google Shopping is shit. Completely shit. The only way it could get to the top of the rankings is if someone manipulated it. Google cannot really expect us to believe that Google Shopping is at the top of its rankings naturally. So they are favouring their own other parts of the business, and therefore abusing their domination of search.
Job done.
" It's not Google's fault that everybody in Europe chooses to use their software and services."
Nope. What is Google's fault, for the 100th time on articles like this, is when they look around and say "ooh, we have a monopoly. I wonder how we can abuse that fact to get market share in other sectors."
"Are you talking gross margin on the cars, or overall margin after all the overhead is accounted for?"
From another Internet search, Apple's gross profit margin on all activities is around 40%, Daimler's is 20%. It's clear that manufacturing cars has a lot of overhead, and significant R&D costs, more than being an assembler like Apple.
"One, if you build a higher end car you probably can get 40% margins quite easily. What's the margin on a BMW 5 series, or a Mercedes S class? Those are certainly over 40%.
Two, even if you target a bit closer to the mainstream market (let's say $40K-$50K) and make only 20% margins, that's up to $10K profit on each car sold."
A cursory Internet search suggests that margins at the German luxury manufacturers are about 10%. So try plugging those figures back in.
"There are some confusing stats in that article though, e.g.: "Roughly 11 million men had engaged in chat, but only 2400 women had"
So most of the 11m men were chatting amongst themselves while seeking women? Or the few women on there were really, really busy....?"
Two factors might help clear up the confusion:
1) Fake profiles staffed by paid AM employees to continue the scam?
2) 11m men engaged in chat. Were they engaged back?
"Merely, that milions of men were unfaithful, willingly subscribing to an idea that "life's too short, have an affair", seeking (seldom finding) that shag on the side."
Of course, this is using the less traditional definition of unfaithful, which is "does not succeed in having an affair".
More seriously, since there were essentially no women on AM, does that mean that use of AM cannot be used in court as grounds for divorce, since it's way below the threshold for even suspicion of having an affair, never mind proof?
"It is possible to have network infrastructure that has more bandwidth than the consumers can use. Every Ethernet switch worth the box it came in manages it just fine."
Since we talking about networks by analogy, how about this as a arts-graduate friendly analogy: take the road network for the UK. It definitely had traffic management. 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 want that lane and there's somebody already there? Not fair! Just move over anyway.
OK, so we've decided that *some* traffic management is essential. The ethernet switch that you mention engages in traffic management. The question is, does more traffic management make things better or worse?
The thing is, this is not about neutrality or management or anything. What this is about is people worried that ISPs will charge differential pricing to access certain parts of the net, or deliberately degrade access to those websites that don't cough up. A solution to this is to demand that all networks treat all packets equally, a legal solution to a technical problem that would make network switches illegal, since they clearly engage in packet management, holding on to one packet until it has cleared the last, etc.
I don't know what the legal or technical solution to this is, but it helps to know why people are bothered about net neutrality.
"What would happen with subscrtibers to AM that live in states or countries where adultery is illegal ?
Please go directly to jail, do not collect 200$ ?"
I don't know, what is the penalty for joining a website where the members almost certainly didn't commit adultery, since it was 90+% men? Guns are illegal in this country, but if I join a website for gun owners that doesn't mean I have one.
"Please remove the link...
To the article about removing the link to the article about removing the link to the article about removing the link to the article about removing the link to the article... etc...etc..."
Yes, good joke. But this is talking about removing the link when searching for the person's name. Of course Google was going to get slapped down for this. It's like being told to move a massive sign from the front lawn of your house, and putting it on the other side of the lawn, and saying "I've moved it".
"who did something that normal libel rules can't remove because it's true
That wants *you* not to know about it"
For example, someone who gets their head stuck in railings when they were a teenager and the news got on television, and this is the only thing that appears when people search for their name?
"Go piss off you simpering witless dolt. It's twits like you that divide this world and make it difficult to have any civil discourse. Ignorant fearmongering seems to be your only "Stock in trade". Please take your "blankie" and go back to kindergarten where you belong."
For fuck's sake, that whooshing sound is the point of what I said flying past. My point was, this guy is saying "I can buy something whose functionality, if used, is probably a crime. That's ridiculous." A gun was the most obvious example of an object that has a pretty clear out-of-the-box functionality that, if used, results in a crime. See also, cars that can do 250mph, chainsaws, etc.
"It's been said that the Motorcycle is a sign of freedom of spirit. Most likely it'll become a sign of freedom from automatic control. I've been pining after a motorbike for a while and driverless cars should, theoretically, be safer to ride around. How much is a CBT course these days and a 125..."
Of course, if driverless technology is mandatory on a road, motorcycles wouldn't be allowed on them.
"Suppose the car is driving along a road and a pedestrian suddenly steps out into the road. Now the car would normally react by slamming on the brakes and coming to a stop. But what happends if the car calculates that it's not going to stop in time to avoid hitting the pedestrian? It could then also swerve to avoid hitting them. But if there also happens to be a car coming the other way and swerving would mean hitting the other car in a head on collision then what's the "best" option. How does a driverless car some the ethical dilemma of either breaking but still hitting the pedestrian or swerving and crashing into the other car? Either way someone gets hurt."
This question has been asked before, but as you start to think about it, it leads to an obvious conclusion, which in some sense negates what Tim is talking about. Namely, corporations will not be running self-driving cars.
In your example above, the obvious thing to do is to slow down, swerve, and tell the oncoming car to also slow down and maneouvre to get out of the way. Notice that this means the oncoming car would need to be self-driving, or at least be able to communicate to apply brakes, and would need to be able to predict what path the first car will take. The easiest way for all this to play out is for all cars to run the same software. In such a situation, no one company is going to be allowed to control all the cars in a country, so it will be owned, or at least regulated, by the government.
That's one scenario, which could unfold in Europe, at least. The US would probably be fine with a company owning it. But also, expect the car insurance industry to no longer really exist. Insurance risk would be passed back to the manufacturers of the vehicles/software, and they are big enough to self-insure, or they would go through Lloyds of London, not Norwich Union or Budget.
"And it just so happened that the best people for the job turned out to be white men for the 250th year running."
Pretty much, yeah. Amazing what being in the large majority, coupled with significantly better education and employment opportunities does for you. What? You wanted the easy way out for altering inequality, a nice quick fix? Rather than accepting that it takes 100 years to educate an entire population.
"Use the QE is buy bonds in (say) the new Northern electrified train line or a new Housing Corporation - after all that is part of the way the Channel Tunnel was financed.
Worstall has his bonds and Corbyn has his infrastructure"
With what money? Either it's printed or borrowed. If it's borrowed that Keynesianism as was said by the previous poster, if it's printed you are doing exactly what People QE (Quickly in Excrement) is.
"But, they did it too late, after the discovery phase, so the judge invalidated it."
How, exactly, does that work in a developed-world legal system? "We have proof that no crime has taken place." "Sorry, you are too late, so we now will proceed assuming that the crime did take place." There's no confusing the terms "legal system" and "justice system", is there?
"This graph needs a log scale on the vertical axis.
Everything looks the same if it all looks like zero. But maybe flash will still be 10 times as expensive as disk - and maybe that will still matter, since the volume of data we store will have gone up by a correspondingly huge factor as well."
I read that graph as saying "Look! A graph to prove my point! Since I have graphs I can't be wrong!"
"I do hope your friends meant "different perspective" rather than unbiased."
A different perspective is one thing. But if all the perspective has going for it is that it's "different", then that's not really great.
It's rather like people in the United States who defend their opinions by citing the First Amendment. I cannot remember who said this, but he said "if the only thing going for your argument is that it is literally not illegal to speak it, then it isn't a good argument".
"Swing voters like yourself are now vastly outnumbered by people who have either never voted, or who have recently stopped voting, in either case "because there's no one worthing [sic] voting for because they're all the same"."
Whereas statistics say that turnout this year was the highest for 18 years, at 66%. In 2005 when turnout was 61%, or in 2001 where it was 59%, you would have had more of an argument. But, around a third of the electorate were officially undecided in this election, making it the highest number for years as well.
Luvvie, self-aggrandizing moment: I appeared on BBC News shortly before the election to make exactly this point.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
