1771 posts • joined 22 May 2007
"I'm surprised there aren't more errors in it."
They're know as undocumented features, not bugs
You say confirmation bias, I say principles. The difference is, I don't feel guilty... Fake news! It really is. And real progressives should be ashamed of themselves for giving any credence this shameless pandering from the same old warmongers they used to rail against.
And here is part of the issue. You call it "the usual tripe", and blast people for "giving [it] any credence". That is to say that (whatever sources you are talking about) you completely dismiss it out of hand, which is dangerous.
As an example I spoke to one guy who was convinced that the vast majority of Muslims wanted to kill all non-Muslims. He had never spoken to a Muslim about their religion or their views. When I pointed out that I have known many and none wanted to kill anyone, his response was "well they would say that, wouldn't they". He was completely closed to the idea that any Muslim could be a good person, and no evidence could convince him otherwise. In his view I had been brainwashed by the PC culture, and anything I said was dismissed out of hand as lefty propaganda.
As soon as you dismiss any source out of hand you create a dangerous situation for yourself, closing your mind off. You read more sources which confirm your viewpoint, and less which disagree with it. This is textbook confirmation bias, and can lead to dismissing provable facts just because they don't fit your own world view.
I'm not having a go at you, or anyone else. As I said, I try not to let it but I know that it affects me too. It's a part of human nature, but it's a part we should at least attempt to minimise.
Re: Too big
Size isn't a valid excuse for breaking the law. If they/their platforms are too big to control, that is their problem and they have to find a solution, it doesn't absolve them of their legal responsibilities and duties. That it would be expensive to implement, again, is not regulators' or law enforcement's problem, it is a problem the platforms have to face as part of doing business.
Very true. Imagine if a company said it was so big that they couldn't possibly keep accurate account, or couldn't possibly ensure their food products were complying with food safety regulations...
...providing alternative links may be more effective. It envisaged a goal of "an open market for fact-checking" that avoids a "monopoly of truth" with a management board "composed of experts"
While "providing alternative link" may help in certain circumstances, I doubt it will have a large effect.
Humans are incredibly vulnerable to confirmation bias. Once they have formed an opinion, it is very difficult to change it. They will actively seek out information which confirms their opinion and give it a high weight, while contradictory information will be avoided and dismissed. It is an incredibly difficult task to minimise this in your own behaviour (I was going to say avoid, but I don't believe it's possible to completely avoid it). It is nearly impossible to affect another's confirmation bias: they must want to do it themselves, unless there is such unavoidable evidence that their view is incorrect that they cannot avoid it. Even then, there are many who will bury their heads in the sand: It's not easy to admit that you were wrong.
I know that I am guilty of this. There are many, for instance, far right websites I actively avoid. I find the material they publish to be distasteful, but also in such harsh contrast to my own world views that I struggle to do anything but instantly dismiss them. I do attempt to read stories from less extreme sources which conflict with my own world view, but it's still difficult not to be dismissive.
Using a Samba ADDC in enterprise is fine, but you have to conceal that fact. Tell any vendor that your domain controller is running linux and suddenly that's the root cause of every conceivable problem.
"Won't authenticate" - "it's because of linux".
"Wrong permissions" - "it's because of linux".
"My coffee is cold" - "it's because of linux"
This is the same with "helpdesks" everywhere.
I once rang a broadband support line because my ADSL was down. They insisted on running through the script, and I made the mistake of telling them I couldn't click the start button because I was running Linux. That was immediately the cause of all the problems, in spite of the fact that there was a flashing light on the router indicating it couldn't sync.
From that point forward, I just pretended I had followed their instructions, and quickly changed ISPs to Be (who were amazing for techies!).
Re: "our contribution to the overall health of the public conversation".
Because there are those in the left wing who are doing good work, and do want people to work together, but their voices are being drowned out by the right wing, and those left wingers who cry out prejudice at the most inane and stupid things. It also means that moderate people are dismissing legitimate statements from the left as politically correct nonsense because they lump them in with all these pointless complaints. It's also pushing moderate voters to the right.
Very well said, have an up vote!
Re: Contractor rights
If contracts that pay tax want the perks of sick pay, paid holidays, etc then their pay should go down to account for that. Paid holiday is not covered by tax - it is covered by the employer.
I agree. But there is the rub: By allowing "Inside IR35 contracts" to exist, you are allowing people to be effectively employees (in terms of the job they perform) but with none of the associated rights. Why even have employment rights if people can opt out of them? They are supposed to cover all employees, which should include "disguised employees" (as should employee and employment based taxes, on both sides).
Re: Contractor rights
Corp tax is on turnover, so after VAT is taken off, but before everything else.
Erm, nope. Corporation tax is on profits, so after all legitimate business expenses have been deducted.
Missing the point
Message from the rest of us:
Pay your fucking taxes, you cheapskate bastards.
You are completely missing the point.
Contractors handle their taxes differently because they are running a small business. They don't avoid paying tax, they follow the tax rules and pay what they owe*.
IR35 is legislation to stop "disguised employment". This is where a contractor is behaving like an employee, not an independent consultant.
However, this is where the point is normally missed. It is normally the client (company engaging the contractor) who is doing something wrong. They need an employee (permanent or temporary), but take on a contractor instead and treat them as an employee. It is often cheaper for them to do so, and they avoid all the time-consuming paperwork and inconvenient employee rights involved.
There should be no such thing as an "inside IR35 contract". Having them legitimises disguised employment. It should be an outside IR35 contract, where the contractor is truely independent, takes on some risk etc, or an employee with all the associated rights and privileges. You shouldn't be able to choose to be a "disguised employee".
HMRC are obviously only focused on the tax implications, but the wider scope needs addressing. There needs to be a real definition of the difference between a contractor and an employee in employment law to stop abuse by either side of the engagement.
* Of course, not all, but those who don't are breaking the law and will, in most cases, be caught out eventually.
Re: 'edge' Lord,....
"It's quite easy to deal with death threats received via the Internet. Ignore them."
For most of us, that's true.
However, for public figures (MPs, Royals, Celebs) these threats aren't always throwaway insults by "kids [who] won't pass their driving test for several years, so won't be able to come find you." It's not long since an MP was stabbed in the street by one of her constituents. If they do just ignore them and something happens....
Also, MPs are supposed to be listening to the public*. They should be readin through comments made. If a fair number are abusive, they can't just abandon reading the comment thread as they may miss "important" information. They can't even just delete their online profiles, as most of us could if faced with large numbers of threats or abusive comments.
Finally, it's very easy to say "just ignore it". However, unless you've been the victim of "bullying" you don't know how this affects you (and even then, you can't know how it will affect someone else). After a while you start to believe what's being said about you. It can have a massive effect on your mental health, with knock on effects to your physical wellbeing.
* I say supposed to. I will not comment on how well they perform in this task...
Re: Oh look, another one.
The problem is not publishing the research. Publishing research is a great way to spread knowledge, gain funding, promote one's skills etc.
The problem is the mass media* picking it up and running with it when they have no idea what they are talking about. They misrepresent things through their lack of understanding**.
* I'll exclude el Reg from this, given that this article included comments from a real world expert.
** I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, assuming that it's a lack of understanding rather than wilful lying for clickbait or that they have less than half a dozen brain cells to call to action.
inaction from internet giants means the cost of tackling terror content is "heaped on law enforcement agencies"
Hmmm... The cost of law enforcement is "heaped on law enforcement agencies". Surely that's not right, is it? I mean, expecting the cost of doing something to be borne by the agency responsible for doing it. Shame on those big interweb companies for expecting the police to do their job!!
This is like the cops complaining that they have to pay to investigate a burglary. There would be no burglary without houses, so it should be the house builders who investigate the burglars and pick up the costs. If they won't, they should be hit with a burglary tax to cover the police's costs.
Either there are more and more of these cases of "government exempts itself from the law" coming through recently, or they have always been happening and I just didn't know about it...
"I am the
King PM, my word IS the law!"
Inside Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 for PCs, mobes: Cortex-A75s, fat caches, vector math, security stuff, and more
I agree, security through obscurity is not security. It's like hiding your cash under the mattress.
It is, however, a potential delaying tactic and can work well when paired with good security practices throughout. If few specifics are released, it could add a large time buffer between release and hackers finding an attack vector. If the underlying system is very secure, too, the system could well be past it's expected lifespan before an attack is formed.
It's pretty much like having a hidden safe: Before anyone can even try to break in to it, they have to find it.
That said, there's also the flip side. If details are released, white hats have a better chance of finding any holes before black hats do, which would allow Qually to fix them before an attack is available for use.
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
'There's no perfect solution - it's a trade off between "some guilty people go free when the cops screw up" versus "cops break the law".'
The point of our justice system is supposed to be that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
If cops break the law in gathering evidence, it increases the likelihood that an innocent man will be punished. Most rules on evidence gathering are there to protect the innocent. Therefore, IMHO, cops who flout the law are undermining a core part of the justice system.
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
"It's only in cases where the probity of the investigator is important that there's any risk - say, for example, a blood stained glove. And that's something that the judge can rule on and the jury make their minds up on. Which, by the way, is the current system in England and Wales. Evidence has to be acceptable to the judge to be admitted, courts don't just take everything the prosecution or defence brings."
Whenever the investigator is involved in gathering the evidence, his character is part of the validation of the evidence. Even in the case you stated, bank records, this could be called into question. Who is to say that he hasn't had an insider adjust the records? If he is willing to break one law to get the evidence he needs, everything he is involved with is suspect.
As for the judge and jury deciding on the matter, they can only do so if given the full facts. I'm not sure if it made it into the full IPA, but under a draft of it the cops were obliged to lie about the source of the evidence in some circumstances. Even the defendant was not allowed to reveal it, even having to perjure himself to keep it secret. That's not allowing the jury to make an informed decision.
Also, even without that, if a cop is willing to break the law to obtain the evidence, who's to say he won't lie about the source of the evidence?
The police should be held to a very high standard, because so much weight is put upon their word in court. As soon as they break the rules or law in the course of their job, everything they do is in question. If it's intentional, they could break other rules. If it's not, then have they been careless with other things?
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
"The problem with illegally obtained evidence being admitted is that it creates a perverse incentive."
Take an extreme case: A person is beaten up by the police until they confess. The cop may get prosecuted, but that doesn't help Joe Bloggs who only confessed because he wanted them to stop hitting him, it can still be admitted as evidence against him*.
The problem with evidence obtained illegally is that it destroys faith in the evidence (or at least it should). If the cops were willing to break one law to obtain the evidence, how can we know they didn't break more? How do we know it wasn't fabricated? The cop, as someone who should uphold the law, has lost credibility by breaking the law.
THIS is why there should be a "fruit of the poisoned tree" rule in the UK, too. That and a minimum of immediate dismissal of any cop who breaks the law to obtain evidence.
It's quite possible that many more would have if they had known about it.
I would have, but knew nothing about any crowdfunding for this until I read this article.
We go live to the Uber-Waymo court battle... You are not going to believe this. The judge certainly doesn't
Yep, I loved that comment, too.
Re: Cleary a crap exam
Brilliant, stealing that!
I studied Engineering at Uni, and a student once asked why we had to remember all the Laplace transforms for exams when, in the real world, there would be a book on the shelf to look it up.
The professor's answer was that, by learning it for an exam, you will at least be able to remember what you are looking for "in the real world". If you don't learn it for the exam, you'll probably have forgotten what it is you need to find by the time you are out in the world.
From this I took that the most important thing is to know what you don't know. There are several functions which I routinely have to look up the syntax for, or the exact name of. However, I know what I am looking for and can find it quickly. If you don't know what you don't know, you have to find out what you don't know before you can look for it, making the whole process much more time consuming.
Re: The BBC used to be more independent.
I must agree. Most people who talk about something being biased mean that it doesn't exactly match their own opinion.
I have, personally, noticed a slight left-leaning bias on the BBC (and I'm slightly left-of-centre in my political opinions). Most of the rest of the complaints I see have been either;
a) Someone with extreme left- or right-wing views disagreeing with a fairly neutral analysis, or
b) People complaining that the BBC is showing Remain bias (when it is normally just reporting on the opinions of experts, most of whom believe Brexit will be economically damaging)
Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today
"consumers of the service (and only them) should pay for this"
I haven't been to the doctors in years, why should I pay for the NHS?
I haven't had any issues with crime, why should I pay for the police?
I haven't had a fire, why should I pay for the fire service?
I haven't had any foreign countries try to attack me, why should I pay for the armed forces?
And if you want to go only down the hobby/entertainment route, I don't watch the olympics, yet I had to pay towards them when they came to the UK, and probably every time they are on. Probably the same with football etc. too.
Some things are deemed to be in the national interest. And, strictly, paying the TV license is not "paying for the BBC", it's paying for the privilege of watching TV. You don't have to watch TV if you don't want, so you don't have to pay for a TV license. Just like you don't need to have a car, so don't have to pay road fund license.
Re: There are always innocent casualties in War.
While "the clue was in the name", Google made a really useful API in the Accessibility services. Many apps have used it. For example, AFAIK Tasker uses it to allow you to do useful things with notifications from other apps, which I use all the time.
The "change or we'll ban you, and to hell with the users" approach is very Apple-esque, and points towards a much less open Android world in future.
"Customers not being able to access online banking because the bank stubbornly insists on strong crypto is a far bigger concern than the crypto being broken,"
I also disagree with this.
Some customers would refuse to set a secure password, if given the choice. Convenience trumps security in many cases for many people, no matter how often or vehemently you warn them.
If people are using outdated browsers, redirect them to a page explaining why you must insist that they upgrade, and explain how. This probably doesn't apply to an e-commerce site, but banking is supposed to be secure. If they lead the way, modern standards will be adopted and we will all reap the benefits.
Re: Spineless of them to give in
And deciding not to take the piss because of that is giving in to them, which is exactly why they do it. The only way to stop them is by not being intimidated.
Exactly. I follow the South Park philosophy: either everything is OK to make fun of, or nothing is. As soon as you bow to one group who take offense, you will have to back down to more and more (if you are not being hypocritical) until you cannot take the piss out of anyone or anything.
I think this is spot on.
If I was the head of the Sausage Roll Maker's Association, and said that a particular baker's sausage rolls were terrible, or delicious, that would be considered an official opinion (whether I intended it or not). If I said something similar about their bakewell tarts, it wouldn't.
He is the President of the United States. Anything he says, in public, which has a bearing on the USA (which is pretty much everything, in their opinion at least) should be considered an official statement from the President, not a comment by Trump.
Re: Well, duh!
"Proper test would require also a solution where autonomous vehicles are 10% less capable than humans!"
But they will not be allowed to be released if they are worse than humans. They will only be out there when they are demonstrably better drivers than humans (which, I suspect, they already are). So you are modelling an unrealistic scenario in that case.
Re: Or simply
"When Police commit a crime, it gets high-profile attention, and rather than a slap-on-the-wrist, people get prison sentences."
If the media find out and decide to report on it, yes. But I am certain that many crimes, particularly "minor" ones, are swept under the carpet.
Let's take a silly example. My brother was doing the speed limit and a cop car, without blues and twos, flew past. He decided it would be funny (he was young) to follow. So he matched speed, maintained a safe distance, and followed the cop at speeds well in excess of the speed limit.
The cop then noticed him and slowed down to below the speed limit, expecting my brother to pass. He didn't but kept matching speeds as the cop (dangerously) sped up and down to try to catch him out. Eventually, he put his blue lights on and signalled my brother to pull over.
"Do you know what speed you were doing, sir?"
"The same speed as you, officer"
After some back and forth, my brother was issued with a speeding ticket. Fortunately, we knew the head policeman at the local station. My brother explained to him what had happened, the ticket was voided, and the cop in question had his driving privileges revoked.
Now I will accept my brother was a silly boy, but had he not done this the cop would have gone on breaking the law, and putting people at risk. He wouldn't be pulled over by his fellow cops. And had we not known the senior officer, my brother would have been prosecuted and the cop would have gotten away scott free.
So, I do not accept that "When Police commit a crime, it gets high-profile attention". They only do when they get found out, and there is a lower chance of being found out if you are a cop.
Re: Searching for old messages in different apps = nightmare
Also relevant to this article:
Re: The Sooner...
"Brexit has nothing to do with this."
Not specifically with this case, but the principals are involved in Brexit.
Assuming we leave the jurisdiction of both the ECJ and the ECHR, the final arbiters of our rights will be the UK courts, and the ones who decide which rights we have will be the UK government. Given their record on such matters (both parties), I find it worrying that there will be no external body to oversee this. I expect that our rights will be whittled away, one by one, with noone able to stop it*.
* Yes, I know we can vote in a different government. However, looking at the records of MPs, as soon as they get into power they abandon anything but the vaguest pretence at maintaining rights and start removing them. Even so, a lot of damage can be done in the 5 years between General Elections...
Re: Executive Presidential Orders are part of the US system of governance
Trump has some way to go before he catches up with what some of his predecessors have done
Given what he's already managed, he is on the right track to surpass any leader of a Western country before the year is out.
Re: @ inmypjs
I agree that politicians have, in general, screwed the pooch for years. People no longer believe what they say, and they are architects of their own demise.
The problem is that what has happened, on both sides of the Atlantic, is that everything has become polarised. There is no centre ground. "I'm right, you're wrong" dominates, and the populations are split about 50/50.
The problem with this is that there is no compromise, no give, no trying to heal the rift. The winners are shouting "we won, suck it losers!", and are ecstatic, as they get everything they ever wanted. The losing side, however, feel they have no voice. They get called anti-democratic when they even suggest that this is not what they want, when they raise any fears, when they try to protest.
So, yes, fine, kick out the political classes. But don't replace them with extremism. It will, and is already, just cause further problems down the road. Why can't we all try to find a compromise, somewhere in between the 2 extremes, where noone gets everything they want but everyone gets something they want.
BTW, just a quick point: There is nothing wrong with political correctness as a concept. It's basically "don't be a dick to people". There are problems with the extremes it has been taken to. However, there is now an anti-political-correctness movement which is just as extreme. Racism is creeping back in (not "wacism" as you put it, but actual racism), as are misogyny and bigotry. The people doing so just cry that people are trying to make them be politically correct, that they are being called "wacist". Actually, they are being absolute c*nts, but the anti-PC crowd get behind them and defend them. So be careful what you wish for...
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
"If one of the policies was to exterminate the Jews, and he had been elected on that pledge, would you still expect our leaders to stay silent?"
Calling Mr Godwin.... Mr Godwin please come to reception...
You still didn't answer the question.
"Just because lots of people vote for something which is (in my opinion, and those of a very large number of other people) wrong doesn't make it right."
Nor does you believing it to be wrong make it wrong. We could play this game of ping pong logic all day.
No, but I have the right to protest against something I believe to be wrong. Especially when I can see so many parallels in history, none of which ended well.
I would like him to be detained and subject to "Extreme Vetting". He is more dangerous than any Muslim I have ever met, more dangerous than 99.999% of those from the countries on his list. He also obviously has ideological views which seriously conflict with our British values.
By his own definitions, he qualifies for such.
Re: Let Hime Come
Oh Deity, Trump and Philip in the same room?! There's a scary thought!
Seriously fuck me. You are complaining about gay rights in America *and* them restricting entry of Muslims? LBGTQIXYZ demonstrations against islamophobia are about the dumbest fucking thing I have seen in my life.
Firstly, I was responding to another post. It was calling for all Muslim countries to change, while ignoring the vast swathes of America where being openly gay will get you "cast out" of the community and potentially attacked. A great many fundamental religious types think being gay is a sin, and sins should be illegal.
In addition, the LGBT etc community are used to being discriminated against. Maybe they are sticking up for another group who are being discriminated against, knowing that no human being should suffer such treatment...
but how about we lift it when those 'tolerant' states do the following :
1) let people drink alcohol
2) let people renounce Islam without fear of reprisals
3) let people choose religion and open churches
4) choose sexuality and not fear being killed
OK, when America:
1) let's people smoke Marijuana and use other drugs,
2) let's people renounce Christianity without fear of reprisals EVERYWHERE (including the Bible Belt),
3) stops labelling every Muslim a terrorist,
4) stops trying to ban gay marriage, abortion and several other things which disagree with their extremist "Christian" ideal.
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
"Despite what some might believe are relationship with the USA is no closer than they have with a lot of other european countries. The whole special relationship is a load of BS. If there is one its almost entirely one way."
None of the EU countries are acting in such a despicable manner. If they did, I would expect a strong reaction from our representatives.
As for the relationship being BS, I agree. But that's how it's presented on the world stage and it's how it's represented by our respective governments. We are talking about impressions and reputations: If 2 people present to the world that they are best mates, one of them does something horrible, and the other doesn't call them out for it, that person gives the impression of approval. It doesn't matter how many cross words are said behind closed doors, or whether those 2 are not really very close after all, the impression counts.
"Trump is enacting the policiies he set out in his manifesto"
If one of the policies was to exterminate the Jews, and he had been elected on that pledge, would you still expect our leaders to stay silent?
Just because lots of people vote for something which is (in my opinion, and those of a very large number of other people) wrong doesn't make it right.
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
Firstly, there have been protests all over the world at China's (and other's) human rights records.
But, over all of that, we (UK) are supposed to have a "special relationship" with the USA. We are not so close with China et al. To have such a close partner behaving in such an abhorrent manner tarnishes our own reputation, especially when our own leaders do practically nothing to decry him. In their lack of action, there is a tacit approval. We should be making our feelings and opinions known in the strongest terms possible.
Put another way, it is horrible if a stranger goes out and beats someone up for no valid reason. But if one of your friends does so, it's worse. If that happens and all you say is "I disagree with what he did", you will be tarred with the same brush.
Have an upvote for the sentiment, if not the detail.
I believe we need a military. If another country does "go rogue" and threaten us, we need the ability to respond in our defence. We also need to deter foreign powers from attacking us in the first place, and to be able to defend innocent civilians in other countries or help in a humanitarian crisis.
What we don't need to do is throw our weight around, invade countries because they have
weapons of mass destruction oil we want, or be America's lap dog. We also, IMHO, don't need as much of a "nuclear deterrent" (or at least not to spend as much on it).
But above all of that, if we are cutting budgets left right and centre, then our current, reasonably safe, position should have entailed more cuts to the military and less to public services.
Re: 20% ain't gonna cut it. Working away from home
"Yes, up to a period of two years"
Not quite accurate, but near as damnit.
However, this no longer applies to contractors caught by IR35, and doesn't apply at all to umbrella company contractors. No subsistence for either group.
Another point to note: normally there's a 5%(?) allowance for business expenses if you are caught by IR35. This won't apply any more in the public sector under the new rules, because "the client is determining your IR35 status, so you don't have to". Of course, this doesn't take into account the costs of doing business (e.g. accountancy, insurance etc), but as we're all just tax dodgers, it's fine.
"Well that's f*cking mental."
Yep. Most contractors, businesses, agencies and public sector bodies agree.
"Are they paying per [sic] taxed money into my company?"
Yep again. I don't know exactly how it will work, but I expect that it'll mean that they are paying the company, but the money is yours, not your companies. In other words, it's a clusterfuck!
But again, it doesn't matter coz tax dodging bla bla bla...
"what happens if like me your contract is direct? I have no agency"
It's down to the end client to collect taxes, effectively through PAYE, before paying the contractor.
It is the responsibility of the entity which pays the contractor's Ltd company to collect the tax. This could be the last in the chain of agencies, or the client itself if the contract is direct.
Remember, though, this only applies where the end client is a public sector body (for now).
I'm a permie, but I would answer NO to all four of those questions, so think again.
As others have stated, if you are in the UK your employer is breaking the law.
1) All employees are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay for illnesses of 4 or more days at £88.45/week [https://www.gov.uk/statutory-sick-pay/overview]
2) All employees are entitled to 5.6 weeks paid holiday (28 days for a normal 5-day week) [https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement]
Re: How to remain competetive
B2B is normally quoted ex VAT. I have never quoted my rates inclusive of VAT, and businesses don't expect you to. Besides, they know they can claim it back (as long as they are VAT registered)
Re: 20% ain't gonna cut it.
Without being able to put travel and accommodation through the business it would have been a much less viable contract and probably one I would have passed on for something closer to home. The longer term effect will be to reduce the flexibility of the freelance workforce by limiting our ability to travel for contracts
That's what the govt/HMRC seem to miss: The country benefits massively from the flexibility of the contractor market.
I'm based in Leeds. As long as it's worth it, I'm happy to take a position anywhere in the country. Make it less attractive, and I'll stay near home, spend more time with friends and family, and enjoy the short breaks between contracts. Businesses loose (access to the labour they need when they need it), the govt looses (tax revenue from the contractor and company), and the country looses (attracting businesses, tax revenue, and more).
But it's OK, because we're all tax dodgers and must be punished.
Re: Yet ANOTHER Trump story?
It would be nice to see these Trump related stories not written as if to goad and inflame anti-Trump protestors everywhere. That's tabloid stuff.
Those I have seen have presented the facts of each story, along with potential implications, rounded off with the signature Register humour.
They are not anti-Trump, except for the fact that Trump is doing silly things which deserve a bit of piss-take.
"It's interesting that one-man-and-a-dog shops won't be especially affected by the procedural changes, but will complain about the approximate doubling of certificate prices. Meanwhile, large ISVs with automated build-and-test systems won't especially worry about an extra few hundred pounds, but may have to revise their processes a lot."
So, basically, it's going to hit everyone in exactly the way which will hurt them the most. Nice move, MS!
Re: About time
overlooked Obama's record on drone strikes (ten times as many as Dubya)
Well, seeing as drones really took off (pun intended) over the past 8 years, that's not really surprising. I'm sure Dubya would have used them a lot more had they been as readily available.