Is this a moan against all "grossly expensive ... contractors" or just against those who whinge about holiday and sick pay?
The latter is justified.
1231 posts • joined 17 Jul 2007
The thing that makes telegram win for me, is that it doesn't require a smartphone, just a mobile able to receive texts.
Signal and Viber need a master smartphone installation, and whatsapp requires that and the phone running.
I'm more worried about the trustworthiness of facebook, rather than the encryption potentially being weaker.
But Irish unification would.
Any Hard Brexit is going to make that far more likely. (Whether it's May's deal, Labour's mythical Turkey with a veto deal or Thelma & Louise exit.)
Scotland leaving would end Great Britain.
If Scotland left first, then the United Kingdom of Britain & Northern Ireland would be viable then the United Kingdom of England and Wales.
If Northern Ireland goes first, The United Kingdom of Great Britain would sound stupid, and be a huge irony.
Of course, not leaving the EEA is likely to avoid imposing all these issues upon ourselves.
Quite simply, they don't tear up trading arrangements that have been built up over decades.
Our arrangement is that we can trade goods and services in the EU (and EFTA to a lesser extent) as though we are all part of a single country.
When we leave we will be most like Turkey, which will mean goods should be OK, but the services we rely on selling will be cut out of the market.
Of course if a Thelma & Louise Brexit were to be allowed to happen, we'd suddenly be trading with the EU on the same status of Mauritania (minus their everything but arms spacial status, of course)
Dual boot with Linux mint.
For the first year I found Windows 10 better than the then current version of Mint.
Then came the significant upgrades.
Windows became glacial on both systems, but Mint improved. So ever since I have been using it as my primary system. Only booting into Windows when specific tasks need it, such as iTunes to redeem codes, but even this has become so tedious, it's easier to dig out a 2004 PowerBook and use that instead.
Instant messages, web pages without the crap, and the extra data my GPS program occasionally needs.
Any multimedia can be loaded at home.
A cheap 2g speed continuous connection is of far more interest to me than a much faster much pricier option.
I can see ultra fast mobile could be a very useful alternative to home broadband for some, though.
By not defining whether leave meant leave the EU but remain in the EEA (perhaps by returning to the EFTA which we left to join the EEC) or leave everything, leave voters were voting for a leap in the dark.
What if we are pushed into a big hole? That's project fear, no one is talking about being pushed into a big hole.
The end result is we are jumping into the hole. (Not being pushed)
So whose fault is it? Those who gave the government an open mandate or those who scammed them into doing so?
But I'm not paying hundreds of quid for an Android phone to get one.
I did buy a Q5 and it was starting to look good with all the updates fixing the omissions and then they pulled the plug.
So I got a cheap (dual sim) Android tablet phone. I don't see myself changing, (maybe a Gemini).
Non secret messages are stored on their servers (as I understand, encrypted and striped across multiple jurisdictions, to require multiple court orders to be accessed).
These are available to any logged in device, and the access by default requires a code from a text. A state could require a telco to intercept this and therefore gain access to the history. (But it can be configured to require a password too).
(This wouldn't provide access to secret messages though.)
Of course this weakness is because of its convenience for multiple device use. (ie friends and family with dumb or otherwise unsupported phones, can still use it on computers and tablets. It can be installed on a work phone, but with a personal number, avoiding the need to carry two phones, etc.)
Of course it was stolen.
Targeted lies, illegal levels of spending and an ambiguous question.
If you believe the vote is sound you don't believe in democracy.
Either we should be going for the Norway model or there should be a second referendum which actually states leaving the EU & EEA.
And if it turns out that the vote really is sound, then the result would be the same.
But you know it isn't, and don't want your preferred result overturned.
As a country we are reliant on selling services to the internal market to pay for all these imports.
If your position were the Norway model then it wouldn't be totally moronic.
It would have problems though. (The biggest being getting your voice counted for this option)
As soon as we can make our own trade deals, rules of origin comes into play, and customs borders are required.
This would be no problem for a country on the way in from outside, (like Norway, that decided that was where it wanted to be).
But for a country that has a peace agreement ending a civil war that depends on no border and manufacturing businesses that have developed to treat the entire EU as one country it is not going to be totally beneficial.
I don't think it's as simple as that.
My hypothesis is that it was a perfect storm.
Obviously there were a number of thick racists.
There were a large number of gullible people who accepted untruths as facts. (And the fact that they accepted these lies about foreigners without question, obviously raises the possibility of low level racism. i.e. thinking the worst of people from elsewhere.)
Then there are the vested interests. They know that this Brexit will decimate (at best) the UK economically, socially and Internationally. But that would be to their advantage.
Lawyers and Logistics firms are obviously going to make a mint during the transition.
Investors buying up bankrupt businesses (or even those where the value has dropped for the intellectual property) have a huge opportunity.
Russia would obviously benefit from the UK leaving the EU and no longer disproportionately influencing it in favour of American interests.
There are almost certainly a large number of oligarchs whose profits have been seriously hit by the EU sanctions which we championed. It would certainly make good business sense the invest a sum of money to remove the UK from the EU to prevent such things happening again. (And the added benefit the the UK would effectively place economic sanctions on its biggest sector, poetic justice.)
And they could be pretty sure Putin would not interfere with any such projects.
And Russia is certainly not the only foreign power that the UK out of the EU would benefit.
Switzerland is NOT a member of the EEA. (It has obtained a similar arrangement through decades of trade deals, but there are differences such as banking)
The UK has over 4 times as many citizens as the entire EFTA, so it is unlikely they would be particularly keen on us joining, especially given how much consideration we give to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
However the EU would bend over backwards to allow us to stay in the EEA.
But they certainly wouldn't bend over forwards, which is metaphorically what they would have to do to be compatible with Mrs May's red lines.
So I guess they'll just have to content themselves with 40 billion and a huge chunk of our big businesses.
On topic, the domain issue makes sense, because we are primarily services and those that rely on the internal market will either have to stop trading or relocate. And those are the ones that would need an EU domain.
If you are providing a service that does not need to be under the same regulatory system as the users it would make more sense to have a .com because it would not be limited to the EU/EEA.
And if they don't watch BBC why should they pay for it?
Before the merger with BSB, Sky didn't need a licence. (Wasn't classified as a broadcaster due to the band used, that was fixed that when the merger happened.) I knew several people who subscribed and didn't have a licence (or a problem with the authorities).
Iron Fist was good, (it just could have been a couple of episodes shorter.)
But the argument is not about whether the BBC is good or crap or whether the alternatives are, it is whether you should have to pay a tax on streaming live TV to fund it.
I disagree with your opinion that the BBC makes nothing good.
However what I object to is being forced to 'subscribe' to it, if I wish to watch other services.
The amount of good stuff that I personally would want to watch does not justify the fee (for me personally).
What rankles is that I am, as a consequence, also denied streaming non funded channels.
I used to just buy the DVDs, it was cheaper.
However, I have far too many disks and am only buying content on Ultraviolet now.
In the absence of the current Dr Who series being available on it, I will just have to wait until I'm somewhere I can watch it, legally.
The TV licence is a tax on watching live TV.
I am totally OK with the idea of needing a TV licence to watch iPlayer and live BBC, and it was very nice of them to allow me to watch iPlayer for all those years for free. (I have never owned a colour TV licence, I had a black and white licence and TV, for the occasional live TV, until the licences were no longer provided by the post office, and the corner shops I tried were unable to provide one, and I got a threatening letter, when I was away from home for a while, so i ditched the TV)
The thing I object to is not being allowed to watch live non licence funded channels.
(Given the technical situation, the most sensible solution would be to allow streaming online of non funded channels, and worry about the over the air broadcast situation next time standards are due to change.)
Peaky Blinders is excellent. (But also available on Netflix, if you don't mind waiting.) But whenever I'm in the Premier Inn (Abysmal wifi, that only seems to stay connected for more than a couple of minutes on Linux or BB10, limiting your options for streaming) I do confirm I'm not missing much by not having a TV licence at home.
Because it really is in the interests of the EU to let us have our cake and eat it.
Any data business would be insane to risk their business model by staying put and hoping that will be the case.
I suspect if it gets down to no legally binding agreement 12 months away, they will relocate to stay within the EEA.
The only trade deals they are likely to offer us are continuing EEA membership and customs union membership, under similar terms to now.
If we asked for those, they would bend over backwards to make them happen. (But they wouldn't drop freedom of movement for the EEA).
Since we are not asking for that, they are simply enabling us to procrastinate until we are so close to the April 2019 cut off point with no idea of the end result, that the businesses that rely of single market membership will have no choice but to commit to move to remain in the EEA. This could take 10% - 20% of our industry overseas (one estimate was 30%).
Once they have started to move, we are stuffed. Even if we get an extension, or a soft brexit.
We have just had a demonstration of what a back door can do when made public.
In this case it was an accidental back door, kept secret by the NSA, easily patched by Microsoft, but it still caused havoc.
Now imagine a back door that can't be patched in every device. (Obviously this would have to be country specific, I can't imagine the US and Russia sharing the same system, for example).
When the key escapes (and it would be a far bigger target than patchable short life back doors), imagine a rogue nation or terrorist group bricking every device in a country, or corrupting data or sharing private information or a single country.
Haven't the idiots who propose this ever seen Blake's 7? (Or many similar programs).
They are basically proposing making Orac (i.e able to control any computer) technically possible.
(Even Independence Day should show the folly of a global back door.)
When said OS is used with systems that cannot be upgraded, yes.
(because it would make expensive hardware unusable.)
But also the people who made and OKed the decision to purchase such unsuitable systems should be held to account.
Why would anyone buy a jack of all trades system, with a life of a decade or so to run expensive equipment meant to last thirty years with a specific requirement?
I sort of agree. The EU will be concerned about goods traveling across the border, while Britain will be worried about people crossing. (It's the whole point of brexit, apparently).
Britain provides mainly services, for which physical borders are not really relevant. (But being outside the legal framework that allows us to provide then, will be).
Our currency is reduced in value, meaning those exports are cheaper, meaning the EU will be even keener to insist on decent border control to ensure tariffs are paid.
All this fuss, just to save child benefit going abroad to a few polish kids, (and surely it would have been easier just to require the kids benefiting to be within the UK?)
I'm not sure I agree with that being a valid example of the mindless ignorance you refer to.
Britain (when not used as an abbreviation for Great Britain) means England and Wales.
British (when used as a nationality) refers to UK nationals.
British is likely to refer to those ruled over by Westminster, until such time as England stands alone.
Until such time as the Scots leave, they are British.
Scotland is part of Great Britain. (You'll be pleased that it is the difference between Britain and Great Britain)
However the poster used an abbreviation, Brits, not British. The context makes it clear he was not referring to the British nationality, but the people of England and Wales.
If we do go ahead with a hard brexit I really hope you get the chance not to go down with us, and I think Mrs May is being totally unfair expecting you to suffer the consequences of our decision, BEFORE you get a chance to leave.
Though had indyref gone the other way, I think we would have gotten the wake-up call we needed, and would not now be facing a decades long lesson in humility.
There is also the fact that Norway is part of the single market, this means that the only goods they are interested in would be those originating from outside the EEA, that are allowed into Norway by its own customs arrangements, and anything not covered by the single market (e.g agricultural products).
Outside the EEA and customs union then everything would need to be controlled, including people who are not citizens of the British Isles.
What is the point of (at the very least) decimating our economy and world influence, to 'control our borders' if the only people we currently don't 'control' can simply walk across the border?
NI could remain within the customs union, and not block entry of EU citizens, and move the issue to the borders of Great Britain, but of course, that would be a special arrangement, and Scotland would be totally justified in demanding its own arrangement too.
And of course what happens when Eire decides to join Schengen? The reason they didn't already was because it would mess up the border.
Simply leaving the EU would reduce the the EU influence on us (and ours on it) to that which is needed by EEA membership. (It would probably reduce the international importance of the English language too.) It would not cause massive social or economic issues. This is what people were actually asked to vote on.
However also leaving the EEA and the customs union, will be a disaster, economically and socially. With a margin of 2% it is not safe to infer that hard brexit is the 'will of the people' (i.e less that 1 in 26 leave voters wanted the wide pushed Norway model).
At least after the election, the Tories will have a valid mandate for a hard brexit. (Assuming Labour keeps to its have your cake and eat it Brexit model, and also continues to fight the other opposition parties as well as the Tories.)
£500 for an Android phone? (Presumably with a single sim slot)
I would have bought a passport, had it been dual sim, (possibly even a single sim one had the OS not been dropped).
And given how many features never made it over to BB 10 from BB 6 (etc), (each update got better though, until they pulled the plug), the playbook being dropped before it got BB10, and then the plugs being pulled on BB10 I would be very dubious about another BB, unless the price was rock bottom.
If I am forced to choose between iOS and Android, then I will stick to cheap dual sim phones, because then when something annoys me it is only tens of pounds, not hundreds.
(I'd quite happily get an old qwerty symbian phone if telegram supported it.)
They could release only OS X server for 3rd party hardware.
They could give it a big price tag, and a caveat that it was used either in supported VMs or certified hardware, if you want support.
That wouldn't hit their main market, and price would not be a problem for the target market.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020