Posts by Dr. Mouse 2114 publicly visible posts • joined 22 May 2007
"It can be in two countries in the world which have no written constitution"
AFIAK the UK having no written constitution is a bit of a misnomer.
We do have a written constitution. However, it is not in a document labeled "The Constitution", it is scattered through dozens of different statutes throughout history, with several pieces coming from judgments in common law, too.
Those that did want it were Boris (buffoon with no eye on the top job in the Tory party), May (mostly hated), Gove (mostly hated). Farage - UKIPs *only* MP.
Actually, there's 2 glaring errors, here.
Firstly, May backed Remain. She pretty much kept her head down, but she was on the Remain side.
Secondly, Nigel Farage is not an MP. He is an MEP. Douglas Carswell is UKIPs only MP.
I'll leave the rest of it. I agree with some points, but disagree with most of it. However, you are entitled to your opinion, and I've had enough of arguing over politics from this campaign to last me a lifetime!
You are looking the wrong way with this.
What has depressed wages in jobs like these is not our membership of the EU, in itself. It is globalisation in general.
In modern times, communications technology means that it is not even necessary to have your developer sat in the office with you. He can be at home, or in a cafe, or... on the other side of the world.
People in less developed countries are training like mad in development, IT support, and all sorts of other professions. While they tend to have the reputation of producing lower quality work, they produce results which are "good enough" in many situations, for a fraction of the cost of someone in the UK.
Freedom of movement in the EU is only a symptom of this. It allows a company to employ someone from Eastern Europe to sit in their office and work, instead of them working remotely.
So I do not expect Brexit to increase wages, even if the economy is not damaged by it. On the contrary, I would expect that it will lead to more off-shoring of work, which will lead to less demand in the UK and, subsequently, more wage depression.
It is no surprise that companies with EU HQs in the UK will have to set up a new EU HQ inside the EU if we leave. This will cause jobs to move there from the UK.
They will also probably be a UK HQ. However, this will only be needed for UK operations, and will likely be much smaller, employing far fewer staff.
UK staff will have less to do with EU operations, and EU staff less to do with UK operations. This will likely mean a net movement of jobs from the UK to the EU, although it could balance out.
IMHO the UK government would do well right now to incentivise businesses to come to the UK, probably through lower corporation tax and/or other tax breaks. This would minimise job losses on exit, and could even stimulate growth. Let's face it, most find ways to avoid paying much anyway...
Fair play to the comments, I had no idea (even now) that there were so many places, even in the UK, which wouldn't fit that pattern. I've, personally, never come accross a UK address which didn't have a house identifier and street name, but I know that I don't know everything.
Thing is, nobody else thought it was wrong either after a lot of end user testing, until it went to Ireland.
I was writing some till software for use at trade shows for a company. It needed to take addresses of new customers to set them up an account with the company.
I wrote it in what I believed was a rational and sane way, requiring a house name/number, street etc.
This worked great in the UK. However, before the Dublin show, I got one of the Irish staff to test it.
"It won't let me put in my address"
I had a look, and she wasn't entering a house name or number. When I told her she needed to enter that, she told me, "I don't have a house name or number. Noone on our street does."
"How does the postman find your house, then?" I asked.
"Oh, he knows who lives where."
It sounded insane to me, but apparently it's fairly common, and it's why couriers over there insist on having a telephone number. They can turn up at a street with many houses on and have to figure out which house it is, with no indication at all!
So each socio-economic group is largely going to vote for it's own interest apart from a few people either side on political beleifs such as "it's better to be a european citizen" or "we just want to be an independant country" and the referendum largely comes down to "which group is larger".
I agree, but think you have been rather unfair on the remain group in your assessment.
While my own choice for remain is mostly selfish, there is also an element of thinking of the greater good. This some of the points you raise on the leave side are applicable, many of them would very well continue after a leave vote. I seriously doubt house prices will fall significantly, unless an out vote causes a recession. If it does, wages will not rise at the bottom, and will probably fall. If it doesn't, wages will *still* probably not rise.
IMHO the potential for harm across the entire population does not balance the potential benefits, especially with the economy (UK and global) still being so fragile. But that's just my opinion, anyone is perfectly entitle to disagree with me :)
"Inside the EU, the laws being passed are proposed by un-elected commissioners , voted on by MEPs from 27 other countries of which the UK has around 7% of the vote, and once the law is passed it can never be revoked or modified."
Issues for Leeds are decided in Westminster, voted by MPs from various cities and areas around the UK, of which Leeds has only 8 (1.2% of the vote). Leeds should leave the UK!
In addition, we would have more influence in Europe if our MEPs actually bothered to turn up, and weren't members of a party who wanted nothing to do with Europe.
I have as much faith in European democracy as I do in UK democracy... Not very much!
And in what world do you think that TTIP won't be signed up to by a post Brexit government? Ads much as Brexit supporters have any economic arguments, they are all based negotiating TTIP style treaties. Do you think BoJo is going to say boo to a US corporate goose?
And, IMHO, we are likely to end up with something even worse. The US is more interested in free trade with a large block of countries than a single, pretty small, nation. If we were to apply to get a free trade agreement with the US (as many of the Leave leaders suggest), and they fast tracked the process, do you think they would give any better conditions, or even the same conditions, as they give to a large group of rich countries?
IMHO It is likely we would try to negotiate a US/UK FTA, it is likely it would be worse than TTIP, and it is likely that the UK govt would accept it. In the end, we would likely be handing power over to large, US corporations (with them suing the govt if any decision going against them) after just pulling it back from the EU.
"he said i have not met one person who voted in"
This is because, just as now, the votes are mostly along socio-economic, as well as age, lines.
I know people intending to vote each way, in roughly equal numbers. Personally, a great many of the leavers I know are outright racist, although I know this is not the case for all. I also know clever, rational people who intend to vote to leave, and have rational and well thought out arguments.
I'm very close to the fence here, but what pushed me to the remain side was mainly risk. Having just recently gone self employed, I am not in a position to withstand an economic downturn, and there is a reasonable chance of that happening purely from the shock to the markets and uncertainty that a leave vote will bring. A remain vote carries fewer risks, at least in the short term.
Oculus told devs (and others) they would keep their platform open to other hardware. They then yanked that support.
They have now entered a war. Neither side will "win", it will be a constant battle until one side backs down. As it is unlikely that homebrewers will back down (someone will pick up the gauntlet if one dev backs out), this will just cost Oculus a fortune. They will have to constantly develop new ways to lock things down.
Why would a promoter sell the tickets for so much less than their obvious value?
Actually, you have a point. This sounds like basic economics. If the touts can sell the tickets for 5x+ their face value, then people are prepared to pay that much. So why aren't they being sold for that price in the first place?
I would guess there are PR reasons (promoter and artist don't want to be seen to be gouging the fans), but from simple economics it makes little sense that they are being sold so "cheaply" (relative to what people are prepared to pay)
"Whatsapp will be rolled out in "crippled" version for all Russian users."
There is only one realistic method for them to do this: Disable end-to-end encryption on Russian phones. They could do this, and then present a warning (at least to non-Russian users) that the messages are not encrypted and are available for snooping by the FSB.
The problem I see is that this could set a "precedent" in the West. Whatsapp would be much better off just pulling their app from Russia. They would be seen as "making a stand", and could legitimately say that it would break their whole system without serious development effort, which they are not prepared to do just to satisfy the Russian government. This would discourage other countries from doing the same.
The other thing you have missed is that, even where CT has been paid, the individual still pays tax on dividends. Before this tax year, they would effectively pay nothing on dividends within the basic rate tax band, but above that (and 4K/mo is above that) he would pay.
From this year, the tax rates I mentioned above apply. So it is not that he is paying no tax, and he is effectively paying the corp. tax too.
Fair points. I didn't realise you were talking about monthly, but this does mean he will be paying higher rate tax on the dividends. And I do know bosses who would get rid of staff before taking the hit themselves, so maybe the risks don't apply as much to him.
Your point about him not paying the CT is a bit of a falacy. The exchequer is still getting his money. If he was paying as salary, he would be paying it himself, whereas dividends the company is paying CT, him the DT. It makes not a jot of difference, the exchequer is still getting his cut.
I know this one myself. As a contractor, I pay myself using a mixture of salary and dividends. It makes little difference to me whether the company is paying tax or myself, it all comes out of the "pot". The distinction between the company paying or myself is negligible, the money is still "gone".
My CEO for example pays considerably less tax than me by only paying themselves and other half 16K (taxable), the rest is in dividends that are not because they are earning less than 16.5K.
I'd say that either your CEO really is earning chump change, or you have misunderstood.
From this year, if you are paying yourself an 8K salary, only the next 8K in dividends is tax free. Even then, the dividends would first have been subject to corporation tax (at 20%). After that, you pay 7.5% inside the basic rate limit (26% including CT), 32.5% in the higher rate band (46% inc CT) and 38.1% additional rate (over 50% inc CT).
So, once corporation tax is included (which is not paid when taking salary), the tax rates are not that far off those an employee gets. Even if they are only taking a total of c. £16k each, they will still be paying an effective 10% tax (c. £1600), which is not far off what an employee will be paying (c. £1900).
He is also taking more risk than you are. If he has an unprofitable year, you will still be paid, but he will probably have to take a hit.
And it's also why an [elected] upper house would be a completely flippin stupid thing to do
An elected upper house could, possibly, work, but only if they stood for a long time.
My own suggestion would be along the lines of a 15-30 year term, with a third of seats up for grabs every 5-10 years.
Whatever happens, we need someone to look at the long term. In fact, this is where the Queen (should) come in. She shouldn't be blocking legislation. However, should something go through which was utterly insane, I believe she would (should) still be able to refuse to sign it into law, dissolve parliament, and call for an election.
"So our elected representatives, the ones we put in positions of power, basically try and pass any old toss into law and it's up to the Lords to sort it out ?"
MPs are elected for a short time, now "fixed" at 5 years. They know they cannot count on having a job there in 5 years time. This encourages short-term, populist views. It also discourages longer-term planning, especially where money is concerned (why pay for something now which may end up benefiting the opposition after the next election?).
The Lords tend to be in the position for much longer, so look at the long-term aspects of what is proposed. Also, as they are in "power" for longer, they tend to get to understand more of the subject matter. IMHO their job is, and always has been, to oversee the Commons and make sure they don't do anything too stupid, without looking like they are struggling for power. They are kind of like a parent raising an adolescent: They need to let the kid make his own mistakes, but guide them to avoid as many as possible, and give a yank on the reins when they are about to do something really stupid.
Labour did just as much rights-bashing when they were in government as the Tories are now.
Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, they were blamed for the unpopular Tory policies, and the Tories were given credit for the better legislation the Lib Dems pushed during their time in coalition. It was always a risk, and it almost killed off the party.
You may have a point about someone hiding behind anonymity, but that doesn't make his statement invalid in and of itself.
We have seen 2 results which corroborate the hypothesis. This is not, yet, enough to be called proof (IMHO), but it is evidence pointing to the hypothesis being valid. We will either see more results validating the hypothesis or (probably more exciting) some weird results which suggest a flaw in the hypothesis, leading to potentially exciting new physics.
Whatever happens, it's always good to gather more data.
Fair enough. I agree that some specs are barely more than "We need a website" or "We need an app".
I guess the analogy is not completely accurate, as there are several layers to the design, from the way it interacts with other systems to how data is stored and accessed, so the programmer can be essential to the design process.
I have still met more than my share of monkeys who can write C# when spoon fed what to do and how to do it, and no more.
@Count Ludwig
I know a heck of a lot of programmers who do nothing but write code. They do not understand the system they are developing, or the adjacent systems. They cannot see from a user's point of view, factor in necessary integrations with other systems etc. They cannot understand the basic networking or infrastructure on which the system must run. They take a detailed plan from someone else, and translate it into code in whatever language they know, oblivious to anything else.
Maybe this is me trying to put things in boxes again. I used to maintain a very clear distinction between "friend" and "mate". I had lots of mates, people I would go drinking with or have a laugh with. I had very few friends, the people who I trusted completely, would be there for in an instant and who would do the same for me.
Software engineer fits better, to me (a qualified mechanical and electronic engineer) because what is being done is engineering. Programming is just one skill a software engineer must have, but they must also be able to plan, consider side effects, understand interactions with infrastructure, etc.
What's more pertinent is the fact that engineering and computing degrees are difficult and the prospects are entering an industry which is being decimated by bean counters who believe that those in IT just click buttons and whose jobs can be done by someone with loads of dubious qualifications from another country.
In a recent meeting with a client, I had to explain the difference between a software developer/programmer and a software engineer. They hadn't a clue (they were business types), and I found it difficult to put it into words, but my analogy seemed to work:
- The programmer is the builder, operating to someone else's technical designs to erect* the building.
- The software engineer is the civil engineer, who takes pretty pictures from an architect and makes them into a functioning, structurally sound design. He must consider effects on and from the surroundings, possible extreme conditions, and a variety of other data to ensure the building will be safe.
Actually, often the software engineer will also be the builder and the architect, but the analogy still stands in principal.
* Tee hee
In Germany Engineer is a job title on a par with Solicitor or Doctor in terms of respect
This is definitely true, but it is also true (as other comments have mentioned) that here, in England, non-Engineers have been given job titles of Engineer (e.g. Sanitation Engineer, aka the bog cleaner). On the continent, and especially in Germany, an Engineer is pretty much a regulated job title (if not legally, by professional consensus at least), and you must actually be an Engineer to be called an Engineer. They would never even consider calling the people we often call engineers such.
I heard that, not long ago, a survey was done in this country asking who was the most famous engineer they knew of. The most popular answer was Kevin Webster, the character from Coronation Street who is a car mechanic.
Part of the reason, I believe, is actually (strange as it sounds) down to spelling. Engineer conjours up images of engine, dirty things which make noise and break down (especially if you go back to steam engines etc). This leads to thoughts of a mechanic.
In Germany, the word is Ingenieur, which betrays it's roots in the word "Ingenious". This brings to mind thoughts of people coming up with clever new methods of accomplishing a task, which is fundamentally what engineering is. The situation is, I believe, the same in much of Europe, and the simple substitution of an "I" with an "E" is, at least, part of the reason for the denigration of Engineers in this country.
I'm sure there are times when taxis are sat idle. Allowing them to be used for instant delivery doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
I think, were it me, I would expand this idea to include other goods. Need a new CPU? Order it from a local shop using UberDelivery and it turns up much quicker than ordering using normal delivery services, and you don't have to leave your desk/house and battle traffic.
It could even be combined with taxi services, the parcel being in the boot while a meatbag is dropped off somewhere en route.
Someone you know tells you they want to kill their wife [etc]
The first, yes, I expect I would go down for aiding and abetting or something.
The second, if they asked for the contact details of a person without describing why, I would not expect to have committed a crime.
The third, again, I would not expect to have committed a crime.
I am not actually intending to argue that any of these actions are legal or illegal, I was more asking for clarification. The arguments put forth in the article do not add up, to me. I'm against piracy, but I'm also against governments bringing in nonsensical laws.
Another example: I know the guy at the end of the street is selling weed. Someone asks me where they can get weed, and I give them his details. Have I committed a crime there?
Or, I know the guy is selling weed, and someone asks me for his contact details (without telling me why). Have I committed a crime?
If it turns out that knowledge of why I'm giving details is required in the above cases (e.g. I would be committing a crime if I was asked where they could get weed, but not if they just asked for his details) then the same should apply online. If I linked to a website providing pirated materials, but which also provided non-pirated materials, and I was linking without reference to the pirated materials, then I would not expect that I have committed a crime.
a Hyperlink is more akin to saying "I know where you can get a copy of that DVD, here, let me fetch one for you".
I disagree.
A hyperlink to a site which contains pirated material, I am providing directions to the stall where the guy is selling DVDs. The person still has to follow the directions (it's known as following a hyperlink for a reason).
If I hyperlink to the actual material, I am providing directions to the stall and the precise location of that DVD at the stall.
Someone puts family images on flickr marked as private viewable only by family, so the pages are protected. However, some one gets the links to those images and puts them on a website that is viewable to all. The hyperlinks are to images that the uploader never intended to be public. In fact the hyperlink is no more than a skeleton key to the contents of someone's locked cupboard.
That's an even worse analogy. If this is possible, it's more like you are hiding the images around a public place, then putting a map to those images in a locked box accessible only to family members. It doesn't stop someone accidentally finding those pictures, making their own map and putting it somewhere public, or a family member photocopying the map and giving it to someone.
If the images are actually secure, they are in the locked box and only the family members are able to get at them. Of course, it wouldn't stop those family members copying the images and putting them somewhere public but, without that, noone without the key can get at them even if the know where they are.
Your argument (possibly made more in hope than expectation) is "Not illegal. Because internet."
Actually, no, that is not my argument. In fact, I explicitly related it to a non-internet situation I felt was similar.
OK, let's take 2 more analogies:
1) I know of a person who has almost every film ever made on DVD, who will copy them for you on demand. When people ask me about potential sources of pirate DVDs, I give them this guy's contact details.
2) I know of a website where one can download almost any film. When someone asks me where they should download pirate material, I tell them the address of this site.
Am I guilty of copyright infringement in either of these 2 cases? Because these are the closest real-world analogies I can think of, and come extremely close to hyperlinking, yet I would be surprised if I had violated copyright myself.
I will actually turn it around: Your own argument is that it's illegal "because internet".
A hyperlink is purely a direction towards material. How can hyperlinking to content which is in violation of copyright itself be a violation of copyright?
Take this to another level. I learn of a guy in the local market who is selling dodgy DVD copies of a particular film. While at the pub, I hear someone saying they are looking for that film, and I tell him about the guy in the market. Am I violating copyright?
Personally, I would say no. I have just given someone information about where to find something they were looking for. If that person chooses to buy said DVD, he and the seller would be violating IP law, but I do not believe I should be held responsible for that violation.
I don't understand those who don't want them regulated at all.
They should be regulated, but they already are. There are all sorts of regulations which require the manufacturers not to supply harmful products. What people are objecting to is the heavy-handed, innovation-stifling insanity of the TPD (itself a misnomer as e-cigs are not a tobacco product by any reasonable definition of the word).
That's hardly reasonable at all, actually that's deliberately putting non-smokers in harm's way.
And for no good reason. There have been a lot of studies recently into vaping, and none (that I have seen) have shown any potential harm from "second-hand vaping". In fact, none have shown any harm from first hand vaping, except when the device is used improperly*.
* Basically continuing to heat the wick when dry, burning the wick and producing carcinogenic compounds. However, it takes very little knowledge of the device and very little skill to avoid this happening.
Or the inevitable* horror stories or general piss take about experiences with them.
* I say this not because I have had bad experience, but because most large-enough IT suppliers would find a large group of people on here who would rip them to shreds with stories of their incompetence.
I knew such "most suited couple" where everything were perfect for the wealthy husband and his housewife until they divorce.
I am certainly not talking about a stepford couple. These argue, disagree, etc. However, they are both there for each other in the difficult times, resolve their differences, laugh and joke with each other, and generally just "fit". They are also amazing parents for their 4-year-old daughter. In all areas, they balance each other out and compliment each other.
This is my definition of "suited", not a couple who never argue and always smile.
That's why the legislation should limit not only the age of consent for minors but for adults too.
The most suited couple I know have a 15 year age difference. Neither is "abusing" the other. You think this relationship should be banned, and the wonderful family they have created should never have existed?
"Sex isn't something that is required for life to continue"
PEDANT ALERT!
I think you'll find it is*, the human race would die out if noone had sex.
* Although strictly speaking, it could be replaced by some form of artificial insemination or IVF procedure, but that's nowhere near as fun!
they then start demanding to know where all the features that they never asked for were...
I was discussing this with a client the other day. Basically, this one normally comes down to mismatched assumptions between the client and the consultant.
Take accountancy. If I was contracted to write accountancy software, the accountants will know the subject matter and will have used various software in the past. Therefore many of the features they need will seem trivial to them: They are included in every software package they have used before, to the point they don't even think of them as features. They just expect them to be present.
However, I am not an accountant. I know the very basics from GCSE Business Studies, but that's it. If a feature is not on the spec, I will not know that it is needed. If it is left out, the accountants will scream that it is needed, and is so obviously required that they didn't even think about it.
However, this is because part of the brewing process involves boiling the water, not because the beer contains alcohol.
It is also because an infection will often turn the beer, and this causes a noticable change in taste. Therefore the drinker (or, if they are doing it right, the publican) will know, on first sip, that the beer should not be drunk.
"Neither Flanders nor Callum posted information on the website, but they used it to contact models for "auditions.""There's a flaw in your suggestion.
There's also a flaw in Model Mayhem's site setup, in allowing access for unregistered viewers to rather sensitive personal information.
This was my thought, too.
I'm not sure exactly how the site works. It sounds like the equivalent of classifieds in a newspaper: The model posts an advert of themselves, including contact details, and potential clients contact the models outside the site. If this is the case, I'm not sure I believe the site should be held liable. I would expect the site to inform the police if they have reason to suspect people are misusing the site for criminal purposes, but they don't control the communication and, sadly, it's up to the models to be careful and accept the risk of meeting a stranger alone. I'm not blaming the model, but neither do I think the site is to blame in those circumstances.
If the site provides the means of communication (web form or some such), and had been warned about these guys, then there is a stronger case. If this communication still didn't require registration, it's likely that all they could have done is inform the police, still, but there is a stronger link.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
