Posts by PapaD 180 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Aug 2014
"If this happens how much do you think we'd have to pay such roles to fill them?"
About the same as we'd pay them now, minimum wage - or do you think people will give up nearly £1200 a month (before tax) to be paid £400 a month (before tax)?
How much UBI do people opposed to it think everyone would be getting?
And yet, in places where they have actually trialled UBI, they have found that almost everyone involved used the income to improve their own situation, either by education, or by spending.
Getting £400 a month on UBI for a working age individual isn't going to give you an easy life - however, continuing to get £400 a month even if you are employed is going to encourage those who want to live on more than the bare minimum to actually seek employment.
The whole point of UBI doesn't seem to be to give everyone a cushy wage so that there is little to no incentive to work, but rather to give everyone (employed or unemployed) a small amount of income based on the wealth of the nation. An amount that will allow them to improve their lives, buy things they otherwise couldn't, or even work a little less and enjoy life a little more.
Doing so actually improves the economy, because contrary to the belief in trickle down economics, what actually improves an economy is having more people spending small amounts of money, rather than extremely rich people hoarding extreme amounts of money.
All done in a way that reduces government spend (by decreasing bureaucracy), reduces the need for fraud investigation into tiny amounts of money (if all benefit fraud occurring right now stopped, the amount recovered would be a fraction of the amount that could be reclaimed by focusing on big tax avoiders)
If done right, UBI could greatly improve society, provide a decent safety net for most, and encourage spending amongst everyone else.
What could you do with an extra £400 a month - pretty sure you wouldn't give up your job for it, because even minimum wage is nearly three times that.
Though in all honesty, they would need to do some serious butchering of the source material to manage that.
I gave up when they switched my favourite character from being an honourable loner with a serious desire to test his martial skill into a greedy, amoral, honour-less bounty hunter who just happened to be decent in a fight.
Well, regulation can be a tricky thing, too much and you stifle creativity and create untenable situations, too little however and you get companies making decisions purely on the bottom line, regardless of whether it harms people.
Like decide that its cheaper to pay the fines for dumping chemicals rather than spending the money to properly dispose of such things, or not caring about seatbelts because hey, who gives a monkey if a few thousand people die in car crashes, we've already sold them the product so we don't lose out.
Granted, some financial pressure can be applied by people not buying cars without seatbelts, which is great until you have monopolies (like the US telecoms companies) where often the other choice is 'nothing'
Still, its a fine line that needs to be walked, and the US invariably seems to walk on the side of the line that favours corporate profits over the rest of us.
That's exactly what I experienced yesterday - when the bass line got too heavy the screen vibrated, making a horrible wood on wood impact sound.
Were you in Dudley by any chance, or is this just all cinemas having the same problem?
As for the film - overall it was good, though the pace is a bit slow at times, and it felt like it was maybe 20-30 minutes too long.
Otherwise, pretty impressive visuals, decent score, definitely worth a watch - Huge Blade Runner fans are likely to be happy with it - people who aren't that fussed with the original, or who haven't seen it, i think are likely to be a little bored at times.
Though it may not have an integral audio jack, it was mentioned that the phone comes with a USB-C audio jack converter - so basically, you plug one extra little bit of plastic into your phone, along with your headphones, and its exactly the same as you have now.
And since its included, it's no extra cost.
I'd certainly be interested in one, though i'd probably have it on the bottom of my left forearm, rather than on the back of my hand.
Then it's more of a conscious decision to look at it, rather than it being evident to anyone who wanted to take a look.
As for design, i'd go for something aesthetically pleasing, rather than some boring scale - so most people would simply assume it was a normal tattoo, rather than a medical alert tattoo.
"This is a side-load of politics into the Register; the views of one of the unelected 'experts' who see their power over us slipping away as we become a sovereign nation again."
Are you suggesting that the head of the Office of National Statistics (a UK government organisation) is somehow actually an unelected european expert, and when the UK leaves Europe, we will no longer have the ONS (A british institution), because (and i hate to quote the moron who first stated this) we have had enough of experts?
In all honesty, when i make a decision, i like to talk to experts in the relevant subject - i seek financial advice when making financial decisions, I seek medical advice when suffering a medical problem - I VERY much have not had enough of experts, and i really hope no-one is stupid enough to believe that ignoring experts is a good move when you are making decisions about things in which you have little to no knowledge.
We've previously established that the Tories currently control the magic money tree, which is why, when there was no cash for anything, they were still able to pony up £1billion to bribe the DUP into backing up their minority government.
Tbh, I'm not much of a Corbyn fan, but what I'd really really like to do is prosecute any politician, or newspaper, that lies - granted, that would be almost all of them - I've seen articles in newspapers claim one thing about Corbyn that was so easily shown as bullshit that it was laughable, and then other newspapers do the same about May
I've seen a Scottish edition of a newspaper have the exact opposite headline and slant as the English version of the same newspaper, purchasable within a mile or two of each other.
It seems our politics is all about media and lies, used to further drive the people apart until neither side can understand the other (because all the information they are given about the other side is just made up rubbish).
Personally, i'd much rather we all be given the facts, and left to make up our own mind, but unfortunate that wouldn't sit with the people in charge, who want us polarised and unable to come to a consensus.
Only covers part of the problem though.
If the real problem isn't that male and female engineers aren't being paid the same, but rather equally capable male and female engineers are being sorted into higher and lower paid career paths based purely on their gender - then that's where your issue is.
Tough to prove, but its actually the most likely cause of most gender based pay gaps - its very easy to highlight that Bob, who does the same job as Carol, gets paid more for it - but harder to identify that Bob, who has the exact same skills and experience as Carol, was given a higher paying role, and thus is technically doing a different job, whilst Carol was given a lower paying role, despite being fully qualified and capable of doing the higher paying role.
"So let's say a hosting provider said it would not host far left sites, or Muslim sites, or gay marriage sites because of their ethics - would that be okay too?"
Well. no, because sexual orientation and religious affiliation are both protected characteristics, and to discriminate based on them is illegal.
Being an asshole is not a protected characteristic, as a business owner i am totally within my legal rights to not do business with assholes, up until being an asshole becomes a protected characteristic, whereupon i am no longer allowed to base my decisions to do business with people upon whether or not they are an asshole.
That word, i do not think it means what you think it means.
In this instance, the US right to free speech just means that their free speech will not be abridged/removed/prevented by their government - (First amendment)
Non-governmental organisations are under no obligation to care at all about your right to freedom of speech under the law.
However, in this case, its essentially a business decision, one caused by TDS - since the last people to host them got accused (by TDS) of supporting their white supremacist views - which has now meant that any further registrar won't work with TDS because they don't want all the flack that comes with being branded a white supremacist supporting organisation.
And, since being a white supremacist isn't a supported classification under the discrimination laws, they are fine to do so.
Yeesh, the last thing we want is to find ourselves inundated with US foodstuffs that cannot legally be sold in the rest of Europe because they contain an insane amount of drugs/steroids/pus/whatever and don't meet any of the standards that are put in place to ensure a certain quality/standard for our food.
So, by this logic
During the second world war, the allies were as much to blame as Hitler and the Nazis, for not just accepting their hateful rhetoric, invasions and general destruction of everything we hold dear.
And to not condemn this kind of rhetoric is a tacit acknowledgement of it as acceptable.
This is not an alt-let/alt-right thing, this should be an everyone vs a hateful/racist minority.
A white minority is already projected in every major country across the West within mere decades - so may of you need to WAKE UP and realise that what you see as a moral crusade is nothing if the sort.
Now this is just rubbish - the current population of the UK is 92% white - that's about 54million white people.
It would take nearly the entire 'global displaced population' to move to the UK to take the country below 50% caucasian - (granted, the countries population would then be around 127million)
If we dropped the 65million globally displaced individuals into Germany, it would still have the majority of people be of European descent.
If the entire population of the middle east (around 411million) moved to Europe, it would still not be a majority (current population of Europe: 739million)
So please. stop spouting rubbish
Just to stop some of the fearmongering:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/
(Noscript are going to still be around)
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/20/ublock-origin-webextension-firefox-amo/
(as is ublock origin)
The down side - classic theme restorer definitely seems to be going - and likely a few others.
Hopefully something will come to replace them soon - but to start with, Noscript, ublock and blur will all still be working.
Please don't use Strawman arguments
The reasoning here is that because Trumps twitter account is being used as an official communication tool of the president, then it has to abide by the same rules that other official communication tools of the president abide by.
What they are, i couldn't tell you - i'll leave that to the lawyers and politicians to work out.
What it isn't is a purely private account - and any comparison between this account and the official account of any other government office is purely a strawman.
If the lawsuit wins, and forces Trump to unblock everyone he has blocked, and not block them in the future, this won't then mean that the vulnerable user blocking their abusers will then have to unblock them.
It will also not mean that Trump can't mute anyone he wants.
I just said consequences - If you tell some guy that you want to have sex with (in a cruder way)his daughter, and he punches you out - sure, he committed a crime, but hey, you're protected freedom of speech resulted in a consequence, now you have to cope with it. You certainly aren't protected from it.
If you had true freedom of speech, you wouldn't have libel or slander laws either - both of which are potential consequences of utilising your legally granted freedom of speech.
You can say what you want, just be aware there are consequences - that doesn't mean legal or criminal, it just means consequences (like being ostracised, as you said)
However, if you incite another to commit a crime, then you may very well end up facing criminal charges (the classic example being the incitement to terrorist action - convincing someone to blow themselves up in a public place isn't an allowed freedom, its conspiracy to commit a crime)
I think people really misunderstand the idea of freedom of speech.
In the US, you can say whatever you want - freedom of speech though doesn't mean freedom from consequences - so if your 'speech' results in another's death, or gets you punched - well you'll just need to deal with those consequences.
Getting convicted of a crime because you said something stupid (like inciting a riot) isn't an abridgement of your freedom of speech - its just a consequence.
Its a balancing act
No unions = all power to the companies and employees treated like crap
Too powerful unions = excessive strikes, unrealistic wage expectations, diminished productivity and union 'bullying'
So, there needs to be a middle ground - but not allowing unions is not a valid response to powerful unions.
If I have to go for non-work reasons, i'm likely to try the following.
TSA: Do you have a mobile phone
Me: No, my provider doesn't supply roaming so I figured i'd pick up a cheap phone and SIM packed once i'd landed. Save me a fortune in roaming fees.
No idea how that will work, but I have no intention of taking any electronic devices through US customs, unless they are work devices.
We should hold another referrendum just to find out what the whole country wants to do about Trump?
Generally, if people care enough - they sign a petition - so, if enough people want him to have a state visit, they will start a petition asking for him to be invited.
If no-one cares enough, or even thinks that - they don't bother.
So, we have one petition saying 'don't invite him' - if you want you can ask someone else from the UK to start a second petition saying 'do invite him' and then we can see how it goes.
But tbh, i reckon the vast majority of the 63 millions just don't care enough to bother with either petition.
I'm always a little confused (Being outside of the US) about how some people inside the US view Obama as some kind of tyrant, i've never really understood the reason why.
If its to do with Executive orders - he did less per year than any president since Grover Cleveland.
Is it because he was a Democrat president in a country with a republican senate and congress, so struggled to get anything done via either?
Can you explain your reasoning please?
Based on the fact that a notable part of TTIP and TTP was creating a deal that allowed US companies to sue governments if governmental action caused a loss of profit, the question has to be, is this something US companies can currently do to the US government (or would they only have become able to if the relevant treaties actually happened)?
If they can sue the US government for stuff done that causes a loss in profits, how long before a US company sues the US government because of something Trump said or did?
Dunno about this, I've seen articles in the Guardian, Independent, Mirror, Daily Mail to name just a few - and that's a pretty diverse section of the UK - it's also being fairly heavily discussed online, though granted I expect that's within groups that probably already knew about it.
Still, will be interesting to see the response from the Daily Mail reading crowd
It does have a requirement for you to verify the email address used - which would be difficult with fake email addresses.
You need real, accessible ones, to verify
It also asks if you are a UK citizen, and asks for a name and a postcode (which needs to be valid)
It's not quite tying it to a verifiable UK ID, but it does what it can.
I do wonder though, whether the advent of VR films would mean the death of cinema.
Why go to sit with 100+ other people if you are in a totally immersive environment where you can't see or hear those around you - why not just do so from the comfort of your home?
Cinema is generally a social activity, even if you don't talk at all during the film - its shared glances, seeing others reactions, and talking about the experience afterwards. With a VR film, you only have the last of those. Would comedy be as funny if you are watching it solo?
So, film watching might become a solo affair, even when surrounded by hundreds of people having the same/similar experience - and since there is no need for the big screen, and the big room - just watch the film at home.
I could see an increase in streaming film content, and potentially the death of cinema. (or at least a diminishment of cinemas for the mainstream as they get relegated to a niche entertainment venue)
There are at least two films that I can name that have, by the UK definition, child pornography in them, but which are still perfectly legal to watch (one even recently turned up on Netflix)
Monty Python's meaning of life (go back and watch the 'every sperm is sacred' scene, quite a few naked young children there.
Pretty Baby (A young Brook Shields is naked in that several times)
Both of these films have passed the BBFC and are legally available.
I doubt you could make such films now - and I guess they survive on 'artistic merit' in the same way that the renaissance saw lots of painters drawing nude children, and those don't seem to count as child pornography, though they would be if they were drawn/painted now.
We live in a confusing world.
Arguably, Ireland and Apple entered into an agreement that was unlawful - this isn't the EU coming along and changing the rules, its coming along and enforcing the rules that both Ireland and Apple already knew about.
Ireland should never have entered into such a deal with Apple (and a whole bunch of other companies), and I seriously doubt if any of Apple's lawyers or accountants weren't totally aware of the dubiousness of the agreement they entered in to.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
