Posts by John Lilburne 1026 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Dec 2009
It has nothing to do with opinions and belief it has to do with making shite up. The Mail isn't known as the Forger's Gazette without reason.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-scorns-untrue-daily-mail-reports-1311828.html
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/mh370-search-daily-mail-report-untrue-information-not-malaysian-police
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2456835/Corrections-clarifications.html
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2015/10/health-regulator-blasts-daily-mail-for-false-unsafe-nhs-claim/
What we want to know is whether a particular domain is likely to play fast and loose with the truth in order to further its agenda. It is the overall thrust of the site and how it treats inconvenient facts that is the issue, it doesn't matter then if any one article is wholly true, or wholly false. This is a much easier determination than trying to ascertain the truthiness of any particular article.
Daily Mail - Mostly Bollocks
Independent - Not quite as much bollocks as the above.
"why in the world would you cling to a failing business model rather than try to improve your offering (and so reduce the raw numbers that that %age translates to)."
For all the bullshit, over the last 20 years, there is no business model there is no business model that competes with "everything free". Neither Ad supported nor subscription services work. Ultimately no one that makes content can survive in a 'free content' eco-system.
"then still only be able to access 10% of what you can get through Kodi streams."
There simply isn't enough time in the day to watch the 10% never mind the other 90%. The entire argument that I can't get X on service Y is bullshit. That you can't get steak and chips from a vegetarian restaurant, isn't an excuse to sneak into the local steakhouse and raid their freezers.
Spotify doesn't have a working business model. It is currently $1B in debt to investment bankers, is losing money monthly, and can't service its existing debt. Periodically it runs to ask the US government to make the bands that create its products cut the price.
Indeed it isn't the Daily Mail, otherwise known as the Forger's Gazette, and the Daily "Hate" Mail. That said wikipedia citations/references are mostly dead links, or uncheckable, should you manage to do so they rarely support the factoid that they are attached to, and there is no guarantee that the reference is the most credible one either. For that you need subject expertise which wikipedia lacks in spades.
What music I've bought via itunes sits on my LAN and I can copy it to where ever I want. However, I mostly buy CDs and those play on TVs, computers, stand alone HiFi equipment. and can be ripped to whatever device I like. Now I have no interest in Apple Music, spotify, Google whatever, or any other streaming/subscription malarkey because those things are truly rip offs.
... we decline in certain cognitive areas,”
How does this mitigate against TEH YOUFS tendency to be off their heads on booze and recreational drugs?
In any case a few months ago an other report from Microsoft said that YOUF were more susceptible to being scammed:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/20/millennials_easier_bait_for_tech_support_scams_than_baby_boomers/
"Sure , if you cut down all the rainforests and turn every bit of available natural wilderness into farmland."
Nope! There is plenty of available land without cutting down rainforests and converting wilderness. Rainforests and wilderness conversion does not occur in order to feed local people but for cash crops. The Amazon is being logged for construction materials in the USA, Japan, and Europe. Large tracts of land in Africa are producing roses. Indonesia is chopping down the rainforests for palm oil production and hardwood exports. Not to feed people.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-palm-oil
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/forests/amazon/logging-in-the-amazon/
The world is capable feeding 10 times the current population. The issues are whether the right crops are being produced. So things like devoted large tracts of land on Africa and South America to supply the cut flower market, or growing loads of mange tout in Kenya rather than local staple crtops. IOW it is all about making money rather than feeding people.
Some 10 years ago a co-worker made a bike from Kidderminster back home to Northern Thailand on a bike he found abandoned in the company bike shed. It got stolen in Samarkand. Trip took him 5 months.
http://kidderminstertothecaspianbybike.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/stolen-bike-and-central-asian-heatwave.html
OTOH back in the 70s went to see The Who in Wolverhampton, gig ended and made way back to train station just as they were closing (2230). Had day ticket so dived under barrier and went to waiting room. Mates weren't quick enough and got stuck on other side of barrier.
A little bit latter some officious railway bod turned up and wanted me out. Refused, next I can see him gesticulating and complaining to some Transport Cop. Cop comes over and asks to see ticket and I explain the issue, and how I'm not giving up a nice warm waiting room. Cop smiles and walks off, railway guys runs after him still complaining at cop that couldn't give a shit.
At about 0200 my mates find there way through the barrier. Railway guy more incensed. At about 0400 another railway guy appears and says there is a staff train stopping here in 5 minutes get on and keep your heads down so that he don't see. It will get you into New Street Birmingham and you'll be OK there.
"indicates determination to ignore the narrowness of the vote ?"
Since the vote opinion polls have consistently shown that about 60% of the UK population approve of the EU. That is why the press etc are screaming loudly, they know that as time goes on and the full impact becomes known brexit will be dropped.
"not in the next print, no, the very next time Joe Public accesses the article."
You aren't up-to-date at all. Britannica no longer has a print version.
However, you are assuming that Britannica has an equal number of egregious errors to wikipedia in the main subject areas. It does not.
Jagged85 should be the antidote to any assumption that wikipedia has any concern over errors. Jagged85 made 10s of thousands of edits to more than 8,000 articles. Many of the edits were entirely made up. He even invented an entire school of philosophy. The wholesomeness of his edits were questioned a number of times but his prolific number of edits gathered supporters and defenders. He edit articles in Mathematics, Medicine, History, Literature, and Philosophy and by 2010 it was understood that many of his 64,000 contributions were bogus. So bogus in fact that many people said that the articles he had worked on ought to be taken back to stub status. However, wikipedia just couldn't bring itself to stub such articles as Number Theory and many other core articles. So they made a list of all his edits and asked people to check through them, and so people did for a couple of weeks until they got bored. 10000s of edits remain unchecked to this day. So what happened to Jagged85? He was allowed to carry on editing for a few more years until he was found to have been falsifying articles on Video Games at that point he was banned.
Back to up-to-date-ness wikipedia is not uptodate and can never be. It must always lag behind the likes of Britannica. The reason being is that wikipedia cannot react to new data until after it has been published in scholarly journals, that takes time. Whereas a subject expert in some field of Quantum mechanics can update the Britannica article with the latest research as soon as it is accepted by practioners in the field.
Wikipedia is not a peer reviewed journal it is a collection of amateur blog posts with a list of inaccessible sources. Also just because something has a source doesn't mean that the source is accurate or the most appropriate, you need some subject knowledge for that, not the first thing that you get from a Google search.
Also a number of the 'science articles' compared were Britannica articleds from the 1911 version that the wikicomedians had cut&pasted into wikipedia. So basically Nature compared the 1911 version of a Britannica article against the current version of Britannica, and found that after it had gone through the wikicomedians hands it was less readable and less accurate.
Twaddle. This is the constant excuse made by wikipedia for the total bollocks that it contains. Its no one's responsibility to constantly watch wikipedia to make sure that they aren't being lied about, nor should that spend days arguing with a "mentally deranged anon on the internet" to get it corrected.
The problem is that most of the refererences are dead. Its rare to find an article where the refs don't 404 and when the do pound to a penny they don't support the wiki statement (see Jagged85 as one of many examples of bullshit).
Besides what use is the thing if you need to check each factoid against the reference? You might as well have gone and read the referenced material in the first place.
You can't rely on their feature articles being any better "Richard II king of England in 1345" was in one FA for three years. The FA and GA reviewers don't think it is their job to check the accuracy of anything they are reviewing, besides they aren't subject experts. They simply check style, whether there is a picture and whether there is obvious copyright violations. So you get a system where technical text gets mangled to avoid copyright issues and ends up stating something different from the original. No one picks this up. "X has a yellow or red stripe" becomes "X has a stripe which is orangey".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7yb-JncKow
The copy editors don't think that fact checking is necessary either. Just think about that for moment ... you are rearranging sentence construction and have no regard as to whether at the end of the process your rearrangement accurately reflects the original.
"generous intellectual property rights enable those who develop technology to accumulate vast wealth that can be wildly disproportionate to the investment they have made".
It has been the weakening of IP rights that has allowed the like of Google and Facebook to acquire billions at the expense of ordinary creators. These systems are purely parasites on creatives.
Copyright infringement is a form of larceny. The copyright skeptic Justice Breyer said in the SCOTUS Grokster appeal "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
We chose to handle this form of dishonesty under the copyright acts rather than the theft acts for reasons of policy.
" Now why would the smallest force in the country want to do things differently from all the others?"
Because it isn't the City of London Police, it is Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit which happens to have its headquarters in the City of London but is actually a National Police Unit in much the same way as the Special Branch has its headquarters with the Met but who's remit is nationwide.
You cannot engage with people via internet ads. Web surfers have the attention span of a bee as they flit about the meadow they are solely interested in pollen and couldn't give a shit about any one flower. If brands want our attention then they have to provide content that we are interested in. Ads won't do it they simply get in the way of the content we are looking for.
If I'm looking to buy a X I put X into a search engine find a supplier and buy an X. Job done. Which particular X I buy will depend on what I find at that particular point in time. If I'm doing the weekly household shop I'll buy what I've previously bought that was good and shun that which turned out not to be good.
You do not have "full and unrestricted access" to modify your car. You cannot physically modify it so that it is a danger to others, and the police will impound any such vehicles they see. I don't think there is any fundamental difference to welding spinning knives to the wheels, and getting some script kiddy to modify the engine management system.
Oddly dixons/currys have been considered a bunch of "completely useless wankers" for almost 40 years. Yet here they still are. Now true you don't go in there and ask advice other than "Where are the ...?" however, they are still there where others have folded.
Amazon, Starbucks, Google, Uber and the rest don't exist unless there is a population with disposable income. What's the point of Google slinging ads to people that can't afford to buy the crap that is being advertized? What is the point of banging out millions of expensive trainers if people can't buy them?
Once a parasite becomes so successful that the host population crashes the parasite populations crash too.
... for guilty until proven innocent? We know that they aren't paying their fair whack, we know that thy are hiding their financial affairs, we know that they are playing one jurisdiction off against another. Once they put everything on the table well acquit them, before that jail the lot of them.
Hahaha!!!
They are simply adding in the expect crash in exchange rates in one go rather than having to come back for a second hike in March. The problem being that the doom and gloom is coming. There will be no single market access without freedom of movement and hefty payments into the EU social fund (approx 90% of what we are currently paying). As such the weirdo bellends in the Tory party will have screwed over our manufacturing base in the 1980s and our services sector in the 2020s.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
