Posts by Adair 1629 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2008
I'd go with 80:20, but regardless of the minutiae of exact proportions I would still argue that the vast majority of documents are little more than prettified plain text, i.e. functionally they would communicate just as will if they were written in ASCII.
And regarding 'logos' as mentioned above, or 'tables' for that matter, there are other more elegant and useful ways of including those, without the need for code monstrosities like Word.
Obviously, we are where we are, but if Word, and its misbegotten file format, happened to disappear overnight, apart from the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth of those who depend on muscle memory for their IT survival, the world and its textual communication needs would tick on quite happily—given a little time for re-adjustment. Even the musclebound would eventually adapt.
... that 98% of all documents created in MSWord (of whatever vintage) would be just as effectively written in Markdown, i.e. the 'need' for anything as overblown and under documented as .docx, or even .odf, is entirely psychological and/or a product of FOMO amongst those paid to do something with their nebulous job descriptions.
'Now, to balance this out, a lot of research tells us that Young People are usually much more media literate than older people. They know better than most people in their 60’s not to trust everything they see in print.'
Sadly the above does not equate to differentiating fiction from fact or stupidity from wisdom. 'Young People' may well generally have a higher understanding of how to navigate the 'media' du jour, and be where 'everyone else is at' (like sheep herded up for slaughter), but whether we like it or not an awful lot of us, regardless of age or $COHORT, aren't either very bright or very interested, and almost any of us, regardless of apparent 'intelligence' can wilfully/accidentally be sucked into someone else's 'fake news' agenda.
I have no doubt that the Athenian Forum, in its pomp, was just as much a festering swamp of bogus, nonsensical, and downright wicked 'information', where the truth and 'good sense' was routinely trampled, and always had to fight to be heard.
But, as long as the truth and 'good sense' is being made available, there will always be those who seek it out, or stumble over it, recognise the value of what is being shared, and hopefully do something good with it. If that wasn't the case we would all be a lot worse off than we are.
No, you're basically just saying "I want the rules that I want; not the rules they want". We can all say that, and it gets us nowhere.
Labour/Conservative/Reform/MonsterRavingLoony/... they're all just human beings. Pick your poison - because they are ALL poisonous in their own ways, including the person looking at you in the mirror.
It might help if more of us we're willing to: a. take responsibility for our actions and the impact they have on others, and b. actually make an effort to work with others to look after each other.
Grandstanding and holier than thou criticism may briefly make us feel superior, but doesn't actually get us anywhere useful.
This comes across as wilfully naive and partisan statement. What are you suggesting as an alternative: everyone-for-themselves-no-rules-chaos-and-to-hell-with-the consequences? No?
So, you want SOME rules. Who gets to set the rules? Oh, yes, it's these things called 'elected politicians'.
Do we all agree on what the rules are, and how they are applied? Do we heck.
Does it make a lot of difference what the party colours are when it comes to all being agreed about the rules? Not really.
A working 'democracy' is a noisy argumentative one, with strong accountability and good transparency.
A dysfunctional 'democracy' is complacent and passive, with weak accountability and little transparency.
Which we get is largely down to the 'demos'—the people.
Blaming the colour of the party in power is a mug's game, or a sign of someone wanting a cheap scapegoat.
Whatever isn't run by people actively seeking to screw you over and parasitise your bank account, whilst actively seeking to avoid responsibility for the consequences of using their shonky money-grubbing products*.
* other 'shonky money-grubbing products' by other suppliers are available, so yes, pick your poison and make the best of it.
And funnily enough human beings do all of those things, regardless of the 'belief label' they march under. In the end we're not really talking about 'religious belief' as though that category is somehow different to all other 'life beliefs'. Our hypocrisy, pride, and frailty are common to us all, however much we may look for scapegoats, whilst avoiding looking in the mirror.
The reality is that regardless of the labels attached to us, by ourselves or by others, we are each responsible for the actions we take, and the motives and beliefs that drive them. We have responsibility for the consequences of those actions. None of us get to say, "I'm okay", with any credibility, but hopefully some of are willing to understand that, face it, and explore the possibilities for life that gives life, and sacrifice that gives hope to others. Life is short, and suddenly gone—so what really matters?
Which is why 'Labels' attached to people are always unreliable evidence as to what that person actually thinks and believes. Most often the truth is revealed by what we do.
In my experience using a label to dismiss or mock a whole swathe of humanity usually says far more about the labeller than the people being labelled. Certainly, portraying everyone under the label 'Christian'/'Hindu'/'Jew'/'Muslim'/... as though they are all a homogenous mass, according to our particular prejudice/agenda is being fabulously dishonest, and usually does nothing but entrench division, misunderstanding, and hatred.
There are people everywhere, masquerading under their chosen label, and using it to justify their particular selfish and/or fearful agendas. It certainly isn't a trait confined to those with a 'religious' label. That is simply one category, people with selfish/frightened agendas will use whatever label suits their context to justify their actions.
Meanwhile, others attempt to persevere in practising beliefs, whether under a religious label or other, that stand up in the face of selfishness and fear—including their own—to allow life and hope to flourish.
And then its all over, and we're gone, and others have their chance to explore life, and make decisions about what really matters, and to practise those understandings.
Disappointingly, for that argument—'...the appearance of complete certainty. 'Thou shallt not question the Lord thy God' '—in reality both Jewish and Christian theology, along with the 'encounters with the divine' described in the Bible allow a great deal of room for doubt, not to mention argument with the divine.
Make of that what you will, but it's clear that a lot of the opinions being expressed in this thread are soundly based on ignorance, hearsay, and prejudice, rather than any serious getting to grips with the actual teaching of Jesus, let alone what the Biblical scriptures are all about.
Having said that, given what we human beings are like, there is plenty of scope for hijacking anything written/said, or done by anyone—holy or otherwise—and bending/breaking it to suit a self-serving agenda.
"[Organized religion] has no place within these walls, just like facts don't have a place within an organized religion."
Paraphrased from Superintendent G. Chalmers. – who clearly knows little about the subject and cares even less, although the writer clearly liked the sound of the line. :-)
'You forgot the most important function of organised religion: to control people.' - and you forgot to mention that that is simply a generalised opinion, not a quantified fact.
In fact, SOME parts of SOME organised religions are clearly in the business of 'controlling people'. Others, not so much, or even at all.
The problem with generalised opinions asserted as absolute fact is that they tend to discredit both the asserter as well as their target, and do nothing to enable sensible discussion and argument.
No, but you are perfectly entitled to disagree: a. with my opinion, and b. the practical experience of a growing number of users/victims.
No doubt, in ten years time 'AI' will have a well established, and largely trustworthy, place in human usage. But, that's not where we're at, yet.
OTOH, in ten years time, the stupidity of human beings will have been grossly amplified by the stupidity of AI. But, we're not there yet either.
If AI output routinely needs reviewing it begs the question of the point of using it in the first place, especially where the output is nothing more than a pastiche—dredged out of an ever widening pool of slop.
I am fully aware that, like most tools, AI has absolute benefits in selected areas; but we're still largely at the stage of grasping the tool, applying it to the work and seeing what happens when we: hit it with a hammer/spin it rapidly via a drill/see what happens when we do either of those but using the other end/...
And finally, arguably, AI is 'unteachable'. Like all software, it only does what it's told to do, within the capacity of its programming. GIGO remains a thing.
Ahh, the great untested threat of the EULA. Which probably is not worth the binary code it's written in. But good luck to having enough loot to pay the legal fees that will, eventually, reveal the shabby truth.
In the end, why the hell would anyone in their right mind, and with a blank slate, even consider using the toxic sludge pond of Windows and MS? But so many are already deeply enmired in that pond—they're never leaving.
People believe all sorts of things, and then the opposite before breakfast. What's your point?
Much harder is establishing the truth and then each of us choosing to trust it, day in, day out.
That's the thing about people, we get to choose what we believe, true or not, and take responsibility for our choices and the consequences that flow from them.
The question isn't really about 'ID Cards'—that is merely a label. The question is, what is the system that the label describes?
Is the system simple or complicated; is it robust or fragile; does it offer effective accountability and transparency, or is it opaque and irresponsible in the way that personal data is handled, is it relatively inexpensive to operate or a ruinous white-elephant, etc.
So, I am reasonably happy carrying a UK driver's licence—not a genuine 'ID', but a tolerably de facto one in many day-to-day situations. It is 'simple' and relatively 'non-intrusive'.
The UK Govt's' attempts at an actual 'ID Card' are routinely a conglomeration of all the things we don't want to have in an 'ID' system.
'The man has the entire civil service at his disposal, his pick of cabinet, a queue of special advisers round the block, every consultancy in London on retainer, and a blank cheque to commission whatever expertise he needs.' - nicely sums up the stupidity and naivety of scapegoating a single, pretty straightfoward, human being for all the ills besetting us.
Could someone else do better in his shoes? Possibly. Could someone else ride to our rescue and save us from ourselves? Not really very likely, is it?
Will Burnham be that much better? Who knows, probably worth a punt. But, don't expect the scapgoating to magically disappear.
We're all complicit in this present shambles, and the only good way out of it will be a collaborative one.
... against Starmer is truly perverse. If Starmer is 'the worst' one wonders what the benchmark for 'goid' lat alone 'best' actually looks like.
A lot of folks serm to have very naive views over what their PM should realistically be. Starmer isn't great, but we could genuinely do a hell of a lot worse. Just looking at what other nations have to deal with demonstrates that, in spades.
Maybe we need to be a bit more realistic about what a single human being can realistically accomplish in x amount of time, AND take time to look in the mirror and ask, 'What can I do to make things better, or at least stop things getting worse?'
'...reason and evidence...' two things us human beings show ourselves to be relentlessly willing to ignore, let alone understand, at whatever moment happens to suit us.
So, I will simply suggest that we all are able to make our own choices about 'life', act them out as pleases us, and receive (and share) the consequences. Some humility on all our parts would seem a wise practice.
Sadly all you have demonstrated is a willingness (gullibility) to give in to prejudice and ignorance, just like the MAGA crowd and the very 'Christians'' you deplore.
Having said that those labelled 'Christian' while grasping for the coattails of Mr. Trump and his cronies demonstrate a very thin awareness of the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ, if any awareness at all.
So, are you really just another ignorant prejudiced person, content to see lies and misinformation creating deeper divisions and greater confusion and despair, or are you willing and able to actually care for others, and this amazing world we are a part of, and allow life and hope to flourish in the face of others ignorance, fear, and selfishness?
If you are, then you would certainly be closer to upholding Christ''s call to "Follow me", instead of following the trumpeting mouth of the current resident of the Oval Office, and all the others of his ilk.
'You shall know them by their actions' - the reminder of how to recognise false prophets.
Human beings, are by definition gullible, lacking a reasoning ability, so this comes as no surprise. More woo on top of woo.
I think you will find the above amendment a closer, but equally hopelessly generalised, reflection of reality, before looking with a less ignorant and less prejudiced eye at the reality of the huge range of people and understandings that exist under the label 'Christian'.
On the basis of your assertion you will no doubt choose to eschew the services of any highly experienced and talented person who also happens to practise the teachings and example of Jesus, called 'the Christ'.
'...like a church: morality is whatever the priest-class says God told them.' - I think you will find that is an extremely limited, and prejudiced, view of 'a church'.
A church can certainly be like that, and some are, just like many other human institutions—religious or otherwise. In Christian practice, your description is exactly what a church is not, simply because if 'the church' is being true to what it represents, it is in the business of enabling human beings to be part of what 'God is about'—the life and teaching of Jesus bearing witness to what that means—which is something very different from what 'human beings are generally about'—witness the motivations and activities of one 'Donald Trump', being an example writ large of the base instincts of humanity, albeit that most of us, thankfully, are generally at least a bit better at keeping those urges and instincts under some kind of sensible control.
Trump is not obviously 'insane', i.e. he clearly operates through his own logical frame of reference. Albeit one that from an external point of view is patently self-serving, immature, defensive, and largely motivated by greed. It is a sad sight, made even sadder by the fact that his actions badly effect so many others.
It is also a very sad reflection on the state of mind of those who voted for such an obviously broken wreck of a human being to be their leader, and a salutary warning to everyone else about being complacent and irresponsible with the choices and actions that we take.
Absolutely this - things go wrong on mechanical devices running constantly, especially operating in saltwater environments—usually sooner rather than later. So any idea that your 'drone escort' is going to happily chug along for days, let alone weeks, on end without needing the intervention of trained meatsacks to fix the ongoing list of accruing outages and suboptimal performance of essential equipment is simply la la land.
Mind you, it would be a suppliers paradise.
Don't let the perfect be the enmy of the good.
When idealism meets reality there has to be compromise.
Blah, blah, blah ... it would be lovely if everything in life was 'free', but that ain't the way the world works, especially where human beings needing to earn a living is concerned.
And then we have 'Greed'.
Oh yes, it's a big old nasty world, full of corruption and compromise, but that's reality, and somehow we all have to learn to live with it.
Some of us manage that more positively, creatively, and compassionately than others.
I still don't get this desperate need for 'nuclear' to be 'the answer', when it is only 'the answer' for societies willing (and able) to spend huge amounts of time, effort, know-how, and money on a fragile 'hi-tech' solution that falls over as soon as you don't have 'huge amounts of time, effort, know-how, and money', leaving behind a poisonous legacy for generations.
Renewables aren't without their own 'fragilities', but an order of magnitude less than the nuclear option, i.e. sustainable and obtainable by a far greater proportion of people on the planet. And we've only just begun exploring their potential.
Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear is a better overall option than effectively managed renewables? We're only just getting started with those. We've been at it with fission for over fifty years and still can't get it to add up—including cleaning up afterwards!
'Civilian nuclear power' has always been a massive marketing scam. Yes 'it works' i.e. it does (eventually) produce substantial quantities of usable electricity, but only through massive costs in time, 'energy', and money, much of which gets hidden away, out of public sight, in order to give the appearance of being a 'cost-effective' means of electricity generation. And still politicians struggle to have the courage to admit the whole thing is a sham, an exercise in technological willy-waving, and a magnificent ongoing boondoggle for all the suppliers. So the politicos keep on ponying-up taxpayer's cash rather than face the backlash of being the ones to pull down the curtain and reveal shameful the truth. Mind you a lot of military (and other government) spending runs on similar principles, so really it's just 'business as usual' just on a larger scale.
