Re: @Bandersnatch ... @AC Funny... but no.
>There is enough evidence in the public eye to confirm that this did occur and that Trump was spied on.
Only you haven't got any of it. Must be a conspiracy.
Pathetic.
1172 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
>That Media course
I'm not sure whether it's still true, but the last time I looked, the infamous 'Media Studies' courses were one of the best job credentials of them all (i.e., more MS graduates got jobs than other disciplines).
Engineers & the like love to look down on generalists - but generalists rule the world, and always will do. Specialists go out of style, very quickly.
And, of course, no manager/CEO was ever corrupt. Oh no!
Unions get into the news when something drastic goes wrong (and the story is then repeated, over and over again, for decades, as if it were typical).
Their boring drudgery, on behalf of exploited/bullied/mistreated workers, doesn't get reported quite so much.
So, presuming that said foreign-devil company can actually identify their current source code, what's to stop them running it through a "change every tenth character to 'x'" routine, and handing it to the required bureaucrat?
Or, even better, a tweak that would make the copied tech blow up, if used?
I'm a peaceable man, who would much prefer peaceful methods to oppose those who would drag us into the gutter. But, I live on Cable Street, London (USANIANs Google it) and have regular reminders that it wasn't reasoned argument that stopped Mosley's fascists. it wasn't a vote and it wasn't a legal challenge. It was the fists of angry Eastenders humiliating Mosley's 'strongmen', consigning fascism in Britain to the margins, for the 80 years since.
>@Ledswinger It's interesting to note that, by "classical" Geneva conventions, Guantanomo was fully justified, even tame. Enemy combatants are expressly required to be uniformed, otherwise their treatment is not covered.
Not that garbage again. The Geneva Conventions have been carfully scoped so that they explicitily apply to everybody.
>As to what policy these wonks are supposed to come up with. How to copy the standard EU farming regs into only English or are they going to reform British Agriculture to reflect that it is really British now?
There does seem to be a delusion that British agricultural bureaucracy began with the CAP. Did it bollocks.
The old Min of Ag regularly issued instructions to the nation's farmers - to spray their crops on a given day, for instance.
The Archers was created to soften the Min of Ag's image, and to nudge farmers to do the right thing.
>For skilled workers having their wages depressed and unskilled workers being put on the dole by economic migrants from eastern Europe it quite possibly is.
Except that there is no evidence that this is actually so. EU migrants are economic contributors; they create wealth (along with everyone else). That wealth creates jobs (and supports salaries).
(It's interesting that your message shows up just below one which claimed that immigration had nothing to do with Brexit.)
>Strange, they're the ones who got what they wanted, what have they to moan about?
They've been whining for forty years - why should they stop now?
They're moaning about the EU not caving in to every half-baked suggestion from HMG, moaning about legal challenges to unlawful gummint actions, complaining about the divorce bill, mithering about the impracticality of replacing all the EU standards and regulations, disgusted that we'll have to renegotiate 700 trade deals - no longer handled by EU.
Yeah. Whiners.
>This is by the electoral college which is in place so that the people are represented.
Clearly you know nothing about American history. The Electoral College was created to prevent populism. There is no way it could ensure "that the people are represented". Its rationale was to represent *districts*, ensuring that city mobs couldn't be exploited by demagogues.
It didn't work, this time - but don't pretend that the EC is democratic. If the USA were a democracy, President Clinton would be in the White House.
This "Antifa" garbage gets my goat. The word is 'anti-fascist' - just like your grandfather, who landed on Omaha beach was anti-fascist. If you're Jewish, you've probably got relations who died in Belsen; they were anti-fascist. George Orwell, something of a hero amongst right-wingers, went to Spain to fight fascists.
To be against fascism is to be a decent human being. It doesn't warrant this negative nickname.
>One you are legitimizing them.
Bullshit. They will never be legitimate. They went to Charlottesville to stir up trouble.
>Second is you are setting a dangerous precedent by restricting freedom of speech
Also bullshit. Freedom of speech carries a responsibility - to understand the effect of that speech. Many of these low-brow marchers are just spouting hate speech as IRL trolls - to provoke others. Now they know that hate breeds hate.
As someone who quit a 45-year habit through vaping, I'm 99% in their favour.
That last 1%? Nicotine is a very dangerous poison, and there appear to be no controls over the people who mix it into those multi-flavour e-liquids.
I was hit with a batch of e-liquid which had a dangerous proportion of nicotine in it. I was very ill for a day or so (being generally healthy helped. If I'd had a dodgy ticker, I'd be dead.) Afterwards, couldn't even contemplate anything nicotinish (which, I suppose, was a result).
I'd like to see some level of control over e-liquid production. Beyond that, vape away.
This is a specious argument. We may not approve of the behaviour of data-grabbers, but the Fourth Amendment never prohibited nosey neighbours, peering over your fence, or store-owners keeping track of receipts, or busybodies counting cars - all 'data-grabbing', in 18th century terms.
The Fourth Amendment constrains government (and its agents).
Stick to the question.
>The correct context for this discussion is 30 years ago when data was the new kid on the block and no-one was really sure how popular it was going to be.
Indeed. We need only remember how many times BT had to renumber the London network, to realise how little clue they had about the uses to which those lines would be put.
> If some citizens have more information to ship and they can pay extra, why not let the providers build those extra 'lanes" with some of that profit?
What profit? Oh - you're assuming that anyone with anything to say is making money out of it? How quaint.
>In other words, leave the market alone and it will accommodate all levels of custom.
Ideology like that makes the commies look moderate.