2642 posts • joined 20 Jul 2010
Re: Happy to be living near Germany
In Germany and the Czech Republic, the title of Brewmaster carries serious social standing
I'm sure this has no connection with the fact that the Czechs drink more beer per capita than any other nation on Earth (142 litres per year, or 250 pints in real money).
Surprise UK raid of Cambridge Analytica delayed: Nobody expects the British information commissioner!
oh, and most importantly, 'the party' != 'the government' (technically).
Hopefully a credited journalist was at the hearing and we will get a proper report of the court shenanigans.
I should think, unless the hearing was heard in camera, that the entire public gallery will have been stuffed with journalists.
The Conservative Party has nothing to hide. We know this because Theresa May confirmed in Parliament that at this precise second the party has no contracts with CA. So that's alright then. Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Indeed, but of course, 'has' != 'had', and 'the party' != 'party members' != 'party donors', etc.
Ok, so you now get to explain to me why my friends in the EU are more valid than the rest of my friends from Africa, Asia, Russia, Middle East and even the US. The hassle for them to be here (if they are allowed) is ridiculous and all who have made it here came as students. Compared to my friends who is from the EU.
Really? Do I? Even though I didn't suggest that? Or maybe I could figuratively put you inside that straw man and burn it?
So they are not invasive? They do not apply to us? If you are so up for being ruled beyond our electable's then why dont we become part of the US? Or China?
The word 'invasive' does not mean what you think it means. EU regulations are made by the EU parliament, along with 27 other countries. Those regulations apply equally to all 28 member nations; they aren't inflicted by 27 nations on one unless you have a singularly myopic viewpoint.
As for being 'ruled'; in this country, we are ruled by our monarch. There isn't some dude sitting on a throne somewhere in Brussels issuing edicts. Again, you are using emotive language to distort the argument.
And to respond to your point about the US and China; I'd rather be part of the EU because the US and China both have shitty human rights (The US has the highest prison population per capita of any country, and both have the death penalty), and the EU has strong provisions for fundamental human rights.
Last time you didnt go with 'xenophobia' it was idiot. You might remember- I like that someone who disagrees with you but refutes your clearly incorrect statements is an idiot. How can I seriously respond to that?
Actually, I said that you are either someone with a vested interest in brexit, or an idiot for still believing in it despite the fact that none of your arguments stand up to scrutiny. So technically, you are a xenophobe, and either an idiot or a thoroughly unpleasant individual akin to JRM. You may be all three.
Of course, maybe you are correct in everything you say, brexit will be a huge success and everyone who matters totally agrees with you. The downvotes you seem to always attract suggest otherwise.
I guess reading through your comment it now makes sense why you started with this factually absent but insulting first line. Kudo's for avoiding responding to me but I still refute your mistakes.
Maybe it's just that you keep posting complete bullshit. Also, the words you are looking for are 'kudos', 'rebut', and 'facts'.
Yeah, I think he's off his meds again.
On a more serious note, all the leaver arguments I've heard boil down to xenophobia in one way or another.
For instance the 'controlling borders' one is pretty obvious, the implication is that we don't want people from other countries coming here (never mind that fact that if they don't have work here, even if from the EU, they don't have a right to stay) .
The 'sovereignty' argument centres on the idea that laws made by the EU parliament are somehow invasive and inferior to our nice wholesome home-grown laws (despite that fact that many of our human rights come from EU regulations, which our own government would like to do away with). In other words, laws made by foreigners are inferior to, and somehow less democratic than, British ones, despite being agreed on by representatives from 28 countries (including our own), rather than dictated by a single political party with lots of conflicted interests.
The 'taking rules from Brussels' argument boils down to those rules somehow being inferior to ones dreamt up in the UK, despite the UK MEPs voting in favour of the vast majority of them in the EU parliament.
If you take away the mind-set that Brits are somehow superior to foreigners, a lot of the pro-leave arguments mysteriously melt away with them. Somehow though, to suggest that brexit is the embodiment of xenophobia, is mudslinging and not a valid argument...
Re: Murky water
Proof that young people are thick whilst at University then grow up and vote Tory
There's actually published research out there that links low intelligence to right-wing ideology; so basically, science indicates that as people get older and develop dementia, that's when they vote Tory.
Also, linking 'young' to 'thick' is equating inexperience with stupidity, which would imply that people get more intelligent as they get older. IQ actually peaks at some point in your mid 20s. By your logic, I should have switched to voting Tory many years ago, and Jeremy Corbyn definitely should have.
I can confirm, (and I didn't want to believe it), that Jacob is an unbelievably nice bloke
His commons voting record draws a different picture.
For future reference:
Personable != nice
Re: OK, that's it!
extensive funding by rich foreign nationals like George Soros
FYI, funding of campaigning before the election by foreign nationals, including George Soros, was strictly forbidden. The fact that he gave some money to a pro-EU group this year can hardly have had an effect on the democratic credentials of the referendum, unless a significant number of voters are in possession of time machines.
Re: That Hideous Strength
I doubt the Stasi read C S Lewis.
The STASI read everything - I've been to the former headquarters in East Berlin (now a museum, and incidentally, the actual filming location for the rather good Deutschland 83), and seen the row of steamers they used for covertly opening pretty much everyone's mail. The STASI directly employed over 90,000 people, and had one informer for every 6.5 citizens...
So, not only did the STASI almost certainly read C S Lewis's books in an official capacity, if he ever corresponded with anyone on the other side of the Iron Curtain before his death in 1963, they will have read his letters too.
I know that most coders are basically anti-social loners with large chips on their shoulders
You KNOW this do you? Or are you just repeating the stereotype that has somehow settled in your otherwise empty-sounding head?
Personally, I work in quite a large office surrounded by other software developers of varying skill levels. Most are reasonably gregarious outgoing, and sociable. Most work well as part of a team (a vital prerequisite if you are going to work on code that is maintainable). Many are fitness freaks (how does that fit in with your 'wimp bullied by rugby players' concept?)
Personally, I have to admit that at school, I was, on occasion, bullied by the odd rugby player. I'd suggest that this wasn't so much down to my demeanour as being down to the fact that the bullies and the rugby players tended to have quite a large overlap on the Venn diagram, and bullies are notoriously unselective in who they pick on. In other words, the brutish thickies tended to focus on sport because holding a pen without hurting themselves was difficult.
Re: Why are we only talking about the US Election ?
If you're right, the internet has been whitewashed. I can't find anything but "BBC biased against Brexit" except for a few extremely anti-Brexit sites screaming "that's all fake news!"
You have to remember that the pro-leave campaign is funded by some very rich people who have vested interests in the UK leaving the EU, most notably the tax regulations due to be brought in in 2020 (hence the 'must leave by 2019' rhetoric).
When I search for 'BBC bias', I too find lots of references to the BBC being 'biased against brexit'. When you look at who is saying this, though, it's the editorial of the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun, exactly the people you would expect to be saying this, and to be paying to have their results listed first on Google - those same rich tax avoiding ex-pats with a vested interest, and pockets that are plenty deep enough to afford some SEO to get their propaganda on the first page of results. When you look closely at these particular publications, it's pretty obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that they are stuffed with sensationalist and heavily biased nonsense, often with small-print retractions at the bottom of a page in the middle somewhere which they have been ordered to make by the press regulator for printing lies.
On the other hand, if you actually watch BBC Question Time, it's so laughably biased towards being pro-brexit and pro-conservative that they have been caught out several times asking question from 'audience members' who just coincidentally happen to conservative party members, or brexit campaigners. Their audience selection is so laughably biased it doesn't remotely represent a cross-section of society, and their panel almost ALWAYS has a hard-brexit campaigner on it, often the likes of Nigel Farage, who seems to get a mysteriously large amount of air-time despite never having won a seat in parliament, and allegedly no longer even being involved in politics.
Re: Why are we only talking about the US Election ?
I've never been to Britain, but everything I hear outside of the British MSM says: the majority voted for Brexit against overwhelming government and media pressure
It's quite clear you've never been to Britain if you think the overwhelming government and media pressure was against brexit. Our heavily biased print media, mostly owned by old rich tax exiles, was generally strongly pro-brexit (the Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Times, etc.). The state broadcaster, the BBC, was heavily biased towards the pro-brexit side of the spectrum, giving unequal air-time (and still doing so) to pro-brexit campaigners, for instance, heavily featuring NF alongside more mainstream participants in debates, with equal footing, despite him never having won a parliamentary election (7 tries and counting). The result in the end was marginal (51.8 to 48.2), but has repeatedly been misrepresented as an overwhelming majority...
The pro-brexit campaign was well organised (they'd been preparing for 30+ years), whilst the remain argument was critically weakened by being funnelled through the government. This led to many well funded groups independently campaigning to leave, and the people who wanted to remain, (the overwhelming attitude within science and industry, and amongst business leaders) being effectively stifled. Not to mention the fact that political parties other than the tories (who, apart from UKIP were all strongly remain) were being forced to use the tory party as their mouthpiece which is a clear conflict of interests.
Most of our media is so heavily biased in one direction or another, it is nigh on impossible to get an impartial viewpoint. Channel 4 is better than most, but is still biased towards sensationalism.
I could go on.
Your idea that the British are fed up with our government is pretty spot on. There may even be an element of truth to people being fed up with the EU, but mostly this consists of people being fed up with the distorted media representation of the EU which consists of outright lies (straight / curvy bananas, Turkey joining the EU, an EU army, enforced adoption of the Euro, etc. etc.) and blaming the EU for things that are actually the fault of the British government and opposed by the EU (such as agricultural subsidies not reaching farmers, increasing social inequality, increasing debt, erosion of human rights).
Anyone want to guess the odds of whether Facebook still exists at the end of the year?
They'll still be there, like a lingering bad smell you can't find the source of.
However, when GDPR rolls round it will be interesting times for companies (such as FB and CA) that make your information their business.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll certainly be sending subject access requests to several companies to find out exactly what information (they say) they hold about me. Probably followed by RTBF requests. It occurs to me that if too many people focus on companies like CA, the combined workload of servicing those requests might act like a perfectly legal DoS exploit. Either they commit resources to servicing those requests in a timely manner, or they get fined, and fined again...
Re: FB vs CA
@troland; just a guess here, but maybe you got a load of downvotes because what you wrote was a load of old bollocks?
Re: The share price has dropped $37billion,
$37bn sounds like a big number. To put it in context, it is reportedly 6.7% of FB's value.
The demands so far have been money, Irish border and sovereignty invading rights for their court and all of those came from the EU. The UK handed over article 50. So yes someone wants unicorns but so far it isnt us.
The 'demand' for money, is for the amounts we have already committed to the EU budget until 2020. Well, actually, for less than that.
The analogy is going to a restaurant with a group of people, agreeing to split the bill, ordering all the most expensive stuff on the menu and then deciding you don't actually want to eat and you are going to leave without paying because you saw another restaurant down the road you prefer the look of. Later, you act all surprised when nobody wants to go to a restaurant with you and you are left sat in the street eating a Greggs pasty on a bench.
The Irish Border issue is not a demand from the EU, it is a treaty obligation. The GFA had overwhelming support from everyone across Ireland (much greater than a 52/48 split based on misinformation). There is a trend towards trying to blame the EU for the consequences of brexit; you voted for it, it's your fault.
Sovereignty - we never 'lost' it. That entire argument is an attempt to sway people's opinions based on nebulous 'hearts and minds' bullshit. It might work on Daily Express readers, but it doesn't wash with anyone who possesses an ounce of brain power.
The EU wants its citizens to retain their rights, which are administered by the ECJ. May has drawn an imaginary 'red line' and said she doesn't want the UK to be under the ECJ in any way. That is sheer idiocy on her part; some sort of supranational body is always going to be required to ensure treaty obligations are observed. The EU isn't going to accept that the rights of its citizens be administered by a UK court, any more that we would accept the rights of UK citizens being administered by the courts of a foreign power. None of this is 'sovereignty invading' from the EU, and to suggest it is is the worst sort of propagandist hyperbole.
You are clearly an erudite individual, and your insistence on arguing your same points indicates that either you genuinely believe that brexit is a good thing for the country, despite the fact that none of the well-prepared arguments for it stand up to scrutiny, or that you believe it will be good for you personally. This suggests that either you are an idiot who has fallen for all the propaganda coming from those with clear vested interests (such as Farage, Dacre, Putin, et al), or you are one of that group, so maybe you are not one of the idiot brexiters, but in that case you are one of the group who freely uses the insulting term 'remoaner'; thus the rejoinder is 'brexidiot'. Suck it up.
The negotiations have yet again come to another stop as the EU again attempts to dictate a border in Ireland and demand we pay for it (think Trumps wall)
Meanwhile, in the real world, where the Good Friday Agreement, to which we are legal signatories, dictates that there is no hard border on the Island of Ireland, brexit negotiations have come to a halt because UK politicians continue to demand a land of magical unicorns where they think they can dictate that the other 27 EU states abandon the basic principles behind the internal market. Which they clearly aren't going to do.
Re: Oink, oink, flap, flap.
By requiring all contracts to cover EU roaming, the EU is effectively increasing charges for those who stay at home and subsidising those who travel a lot
It all depends on whether a telco actually has any real costs (other than reduced capacity) when they allow another telco to use their network.
Previously, there were 'termination charges' which were passed onto the user, essentially making extra money for the telcos. However, if telco A charges telco B X amount for roaming users in a month, and telco B charges the same amount back to telco A for its roaming users, then both telcos are absorbing the same costs in increased capacity use, whilst at the same time saving costs by the reduced capacity use, and it all evens out to nothing.
In other words, no customer is subsidising another, unless the telcos get greedy like they were before the EU put a stop to it.
Caveat - this favours large telcos over smaller ones, as the smaller ones will have to support proportionately more roaming users. Given that all mobile telcos seem to be massive nation-wide or multinational entities, this is probably not a concern.
Re: Oink, oink, flap, flap.
And one other problem I noticed today, which I'm sure isn't at the top of Maybot's ToDo list - what is the status of UK businesses that have registered and are using .eu domains - which are only available to EU and EEA entities. Will we lose them?
At a guess, businesses using them will be able to continue doing so until they are due to expire. Come renewal time, if the country doesn't collectively come to its senses and we are no longer part of the EU at that point, I would expect the registrar to not renew them if those businesses do not have a base of operations in the EU.
Previous occupant of the unit that is/was my local Maplin was Blockbuster. It'd be a brave business to take on that unit.
Is that the one in Bristol by any chance?
Re: I suspect
Also how do you stop people falling into that big hole.
Flashy demo graphics aside, that's a solved problem. If you go to any city with a metro system and elevators to street level, they're called lift doors.
As far as I can tell, what Musk is proposing is a glorified Wonkavator™.
...and IBS stands for Iain Bunkum Smith
Re: Another mess inherited from Labour
Re: Another mess inherited from Labour
Corbyn may have many faults (such as his unfortunate leaning towards brexit) but you can't lay UC at his feet, as noted above, it was IDS all the way, a man who has married into money and never had to work a proper job in his life*.
While we're at it, the whole Corbyn/Kremlin thing comes from the gutter press and has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Take a look at the other lot if you want to see what receiving cash from Russian oligarchs actually looks like. It doesn't take too long to find details on t'internet, along with pictures.
*His 'tour of duty' in the army, consisted of an office role in NI.
Re: before the EU existed
Yes, and now we're 50 years further on, and Labour still hasn't got a clue about the economy.
I suggest you go and do a bit of research, such as looking at various measures of economic performance over time (such as GDP, national debt, gap between rich and poor, etc.) and correlate them with the colour of the government of the day and rethink that statement. Historically, the other lot have been significantly worse performers.
Repeating 'received wisdom' that has been passed to you by people with a biased interest in the matter seldom highlights you as a well informed individual.
Re: quite the contrary
Dont worry I will help. The UK is a net contributor.
Complete tosh. The UK doesn't contribute a single penny to the ECB (i.e. the Euro). Either you are deliberately and wilfully conflating the EU budget with the Euro, in order to deceive others, or you just are not capable of understanding the difference. Either way, just like other prominent leavers, you are lying to people.
Re: quite the contrary
They use the Euro, that currency in crisis that caused wide economic damage to the EU members and the GBP was being used to prop up. The currency being bailed out by other currencies to keep it going. When we leave the EU we will continue to have the GBP as we had before the EU even existed!
Where to start with all the kinds of wrong that is?
Lets start with the stability of the Euro...
It looks like the Euro has been holding its own pretty well, so lets strike that one off...
Now lets go with the assertion that the GBP is propping up the Euro. The GBP is not linked to the ECB which manages the Euro, so I don't know where you're getting that from.
Ok, lets look at the 'we will continue to have the GBP as we did before' bit. On the day of the referendum result, the GBP dropped in value by 20%. It hasn't recovered. When (if) we do finally jump off that cliff, it's going to drop a lot further. We won't have the GBP we used to have. If we're lucky we'll have 70p in the pound.
You don't assess the compelxity of a system based on the number of users
With that in mind, I predict that the eventual system, should the country not come to its senses in time, will be more complex than the current one, 3-5 years late and 2-3 times over budget. It might even get scrapped before a live implementation too. The usual suspects will profit.
Re: Can we not do the American thing
It's called a provisional license; it's green rather than pink and has a big 'P' on it.
my driving licence is a pink paper one (lost the green one)
I hope you are aware that that piece of paper is no longer legally part of the driving license, so if you don't have the photocard license, and are driving, then you are doing so without a license, and may find yourself having a difficult conversation with the local constabulary if you get stopped at a traffic census.
It's worth noting that one of the main opponents of ID cards at the time was one D. Davis. Make of this what you will.
Re: 44 allegations
No that isn't hyperbole anymore. "I am the last marxist in parliament" said the shadow chancellor. The leader of the opposition spent a recent holiday in Mexico to visit the house of his idol Leon Trotsky.
What a lovely quote taken out of context. The sort of dark-arts propaganda one would expect to see coming from Goebbels.
A couple of years a go, I went to Berlin for a short break. As part of this, I visited such places as Checkpoint Charlie, the former headquarters of the STASI, the holocaust memorials (the well known one, as well as the ones in the Tiergarten), and the site of the former SS headquarters. By your logic, I should be viewed simultaneously as a Soviet tank driver, an American tank driver, a Stalinist, a Jew, a Homosexual, a Sinti, a Roma, and a blackshirt.
Re: 44 allegations
When student union leaders were actively instructing people to double vote and where it is very difficult to verify who has voted twice, of course it was more than 44 people who double voted.
I'm going to call bullshit on this one.
Last time I went to cast my vote, they found my name on the list and crossed it off before handing me the voting papers. This is how the prevent double-voting, and is how they have done it in every election I have voted in back to the early '90s.
Re: Conflicted as usual.
If Millennials are not to blame for their flakey, overly emotional, special snowflake, I want it all on a plate NOW attitudes, then who is?
Maybe the people who want to tar an entire age group with the same brush.
I can certainly remember being that age. You may differ from others in that you were able to develop a mercenary attitude towards others at an early age and get ahead. Thank $deity that not all folk are like that, or our species is doomed.
It sounds very much to me that you are blaming the young for their youth and inexperience at life. Our generation had the benefit of free university education, whilst lumbering them with debt when they try to gain the same advantages. Their job opportunities consist largely of zero-hours contracts, 'gig-economy' jobs with no security, poorly paid apprenticeships or internment in a call centre. Is it any wonder that you can only think of one person in that age range that has managed to get ahead?
Re: Conflicted as usual.
I think there might be a reason why housing in Omagh and Luton is inexpensive. If you think carefully, you might be able to work it out for yourself.
Re: Conflicted as usual.
I, too, am a Gen X'r. It's our generation the Baby Boomers stole from, and our generation that is in a large part trapped in rented accommodation where the money flows back to them.
Millennials may be on occasion annoying (I had the misfortune to be sat next to a particularly vapid pair in a restaurant only last night), but they're not to blame, and describing them as a 'waste of oxygen' achieves nothing more than setting yourself up as the future villain of the piece.
Re: Conflicted as usual.
Sure there is. You can do what they did to acquire it - work hard over a whole working lifetime, spending less than you earn, and investing the difference in property, shares, or some other such thing.
...and buy a semi-detached house with a garden at 4 times your salary. Oh, wait...
Taxing "turnover". That's just a sales tax to be paid by the consumer. What a joke.
If a company is making profits and driving the competition out of business by taking an unfair advantage by moving its tax liabilities around the world, and therefore undercutting companies which don't do this, the effect of levying this tax will be to drive up the cost when buying from that company. Since their price is already artificially low and anti-competitive, this is not a bug, it is a feature. Consumers will then have a choice of places to buy from, rather than have one entity undercutting everyone else by 20% and driving them out of business.
Re: The world's largest aircraft?
I think there might be some monsters used in open cast mining that are larger (and certainly heavier) in those terms. Try googling "Bagger 293"...
Nix also denied CA was a data miner. “We use large data sets and try and find patterns in that data, and make predictions about audiences. We’re just running algorithms on that data to find meaning in it.”
Of course you're not data mining. Looking for patterns in large data sets via 'algorithms' is totally not the actual definition of the term.
Now excuse me, I have to ride my unicorn to work in the magical land of rainbows.
Re: Our missing productivity was shifted to China
And yet, the whole world over, Capitalism has time and again prove throughout all of human history to be the only system that increases living standards for all; while Socialism & Communism have impoverished all their nations and sent millions to an early death.
I think you missed the pertinent bit of my post which was the 'neo-liberal' bit; unfettered capitalism is as much a failure as an unfettered command economy. The market needs regulation, or eventually, all the cash ends up being controlled by a monopoly.
You also appear to be confusing economics with politics when you contrast capitalism (an economic construct) with socialism (a political one), and are wilfully ignoring the very successful European socialist countries (such as Finland and Denmark) where the standard of living is much higher that that which most in the UK and US enjoy.
D- must try harder
Re: Inflation is lack of productivity in spending
What most people imagine a more wild market, or
lasy fare laissez faire* (which means the police don't look too hard at what you're doing ;-)
*French for (roughly) "leave it be".
Re: Our missing productivity was shifted to China
Ford is, despite his obvious business credentials, practically a Marxist in today's terms. He has written some very insightful opinions on exactly how the "free" market works, with particular vehemence for the bankers.
The more observant might notice the correlation between his dislike for bankers and his renowned anti-Semitism (and his infamous anti-Semitic publications entitled, "the International Jew") and draw conclusions as to why this was his opinion. He may have been 'virtually a Marxist' in some respects, but in others he was far closer to being a fascist.
It probably tells us something about how right-wing the failed project of neo-liberal capitalism has become that Ford would be thought of as left-wing in any way.
It doesn't take a flashy report with pretty graphs...
...to tell you that if you pay people badly, they are less productive.
This translates to lower productivity in societies that have more inequality vs those that are more egalitarian.
There is a correlation here between productivity falling in the US and UK, and an increase in the gap between the richest and poorest in these countries. Perfectly egalitarian societies don't work either (due to human nature), but there is a happy medium to be struck.
There's a way of measuring the gap between the rich and poor and turning this into a number, which corresponds quite neatly to how 'healthy' a society's economy is; I can't remember exactly what it's called, but it's all interesting stuff.
Government reaction would either be "ooh, more exploits we can use to spy on the public, er, dangerous actors" or "PAANNIIICCC!!!! TELL EVERYONE RIGHT NOW".
The US govt. response would most likely be, "Don't fix it, we'll exploit this thank you very much, and definitely don't tell anyone else, or there will be Consequences."
Re: Brought to you...
You should know that it was the UK that helped to create those standards and they will be set in UK law when we leave the EU. Stop being so cynical.
Except our Dear Leader has been "very clear" that given half a chance, those standards will be replaced with a new "British bill of rights" or similar. This begs the obvious question; if the new 'rights' will be as strong, or stronger than, the existing rights, why revoke the existing ones first? The only possible reason for wanting to do that is if the new ones are weaker and therefore the existing rights would be breached by their introduction.
The British lawmakers and diplomats involved in the drafting of the rights we now enjoy were highly skilled individuals seeking to ensure that the terrible abuses of human rights that had occurred in the preceding decades of European history would not be repeated. They were remarkably successful in that aim, and the finger of suspicion should be pointed firmly at anyone who tries to revoke them, especially if that person has a consistent track record of doing so. Anyone who is paying attention really should be alarmed.
And that's 50/50.