(insert Brexit gag here)
91 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Aug 2017
I ran lots of the betas, and of course there were issues there - they were betas after all. And it's not like they haven't been saying that 32 bit support was going. If you were prepared for this, then that part's not a big deal
Catalina has been installed now on my both work and home machines (work got a late beta a couple of weeks before realise, my one a bi earlier - it's usyaslly sensible to hold off the Mac OS bets until around 4 or 5 revisions in, usually around early- mid august; by then they seem to put most major plumbing changes in ) and is generally solid. My only issue has been there since mid-summer - manually syncing photos libraries to an iPhone, because I don't want to use iCloud photos, thanks. And it's an issue that has cropped up on earlier os versions too. My phone is actually running the 13.2 beta now, and is actually fairly solid. I think the phone stuff was generally better than last years cycle tbh, even allowing for the reminders issue, which in fairness they did flag quite heavily in the dev docs for the betas
According to the government's own figures (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/812844/Income_Tax_Liabilities_Statistics_June_2019.pdf)
"The Top 1% (broadlyall Additional Rate taxpayers) had 12.3% of total income in 2016-17 and were liable for 28.1% of total income tax.**
Now, what proportion of the total tax take is income tax? Well, according to parliament documents (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8513)
"UK government raises over £785 billion a year in receipts – income from taxes and other sources – equivalent to around 37% of GDP. The majority are from three main sources: income tax, National Insurance contributions (NICs) and value added tax (VAT). Together these raise over £460 billion. Income tax contributes £192 billion."
So, about 6.9% of the total tax yield.Or, if you want to use the 460bn figure, 11.7%
And it's all the more ironic that most of the decisions about this are being made by governments with little or no scientific background at all. There are quite a lot of PPE graduates in here: general studies for the chinless.
The second paragraph is bang on the money though. I've a science degree, but think the way arts is funded, and opportunities restricted to the wealthiest is depressingly and predictably scandalous.
I went to the first Bluedot in 2016, but haven't been since. It has certainly expanded.
The ticket and the wristband are connected - they recommended you keep your ticket to allow you to cancel lost/stolen wristbands and get replacements with less fuss. The phone app is fairly explicit about this (or at least I inferred as much from the way the information was presented) I wasn't hugely concerned, because they already have most the information on the wristband from your ticket anyway. It's not such a bad idea because it cuts down the amount of floating cash and opportunistic theft connected to that. You could claim back any remaining balance in your account from Tuesday, which was a quick job if you'd registered; you could choose to donate all/some/none of that remained to nominated charities. (the refund takes around 3-5 working days to process, apparently, when I did my request, and the money's now back in my bank account)
My principal problem wasn't payment, which largely worked ok for me, but the rather hit and miss nature of the "mission log" feature. The contact points didn't make it clear whether the registration had worked or not (a visual, not just audio alarm would be nice), and I can see why having some of the is data is useful- -it helps them to see how busy venues are getting at particular times, and is probably useful for crowd flow and planning purposes. Given how much busier people said this year's event was than previous (some truth in that), and some had mentioned crowding, that's probably useful data to have if they can make it more reliable. It's the first year they've run this, so I'm expecting when they do it again (and they will), that they will learn some lesion form his year. It might actually be easier to use bacons at venues to record attendances and capacity as most hand their phones with me anyway.
I was a supporter of the NO2ID campaign back during the late noughties (I literally have the t-shirt). While I don't have an issue with ID per se, the main issue I saw with it here was the relationship it assumed between citizen and state, and about the ownership of and responsibility for personal data. This was the sort of thing that other countries, with explicit constitutional protections for citizens, struggled less with.
So, for example, in the Blunkett bill that went before parliament, you had the fairly nasty combination of: the government owns your data, and can prosecute you if your data is found to be incorrect or false. Conversely however, if you discovered your data was not correct, the government were under no obligation to change it (though could conceivably prosecute you if they _then_ decided the data was wrong, even if you'd told them so a priori). Without primary legislation that prevented authorities compelling users to carry id tokens at all times, or compelling them them to produce ID while going about lawful business, the scheme always smelled nasty to me. I was extremely wary of the feature creep that had happened (despite promises to the contrary) in RIPA oversight and powers.
"they would/could/might develop an algorithm that recognizes spoofed data."
Costing them time and money. and not guaranteeing accuracy. The pissing in the data pool idea is actually a good one, especially if people do it to differing degrees at different times, because there's no pattern - almost like the brownian motion of bullshit. Brownian motion is perfect for that, as it's a great way to generate actual randomness, and that is difficult to filter out.
The chronology is an issue there. HTML existed before XML, and indeed XHTML was the attempt to make the parsing of messy awkward HTML with its SGML roots much more sleek and amenable to machine processing when the early talk was about how useful this would be for semantic web applications.. The problem was that the tools to write that lovely efficient XHTML were not that great, and people were used to the loose parsing and tolerance of browser engines which are, after all, just HTML interpreters. From a programming point of view these are known issues. We've tried the XHTML route, and frankly, it didn't work out that well. The finnicky syntax (especially case rules and attributes) were not that friendly for those writing. Part of the reason the web took off was because the syntax was so sloppy. It is easy to write. Easy to write badly too, obviously, but easy to get some thing working.
Now of course few popped hand write HTL anymore, so doing it programmatically seems so much easier. At just the time HTML5 finally emerged.
"The Teesside twang is softer than Geordie, but the rich ‘Boro accent is gradually getting more standardised and Southern."
To which the standard Teesside response is simply:
'Ow, yer 'avin' a laff aren't yer, yer fuckin' doyle.
Middlesbrough has a weird mix of North Yorkshire, Durham, Scots, Irish and Scouse. This is a legacy of its comparatively young age (founded around 1830), and its rapid industrial growth, bringing in people for construction and heavy industry. Teesside is pretty the only place other than Liverpool where the Ken Dodd song "Where's Me Shirt?" doesn't sound too out of place.
In fact, the test of a north-eastern accent is to get the speaker to say the words "purple work shirt". The more Scouse it sounds, the nearer the Boro you are, pretty much.
a government agency. It remit and its activity is regulated by government. And therein lies the problem. While there may be many competent and ethically upstanding people inside the service, the people setting the parameters for its activity are anything but. What GCHQ provides is used by both the Home and Foreign Office (at least) and is, therefore within the remit of the secretaries of state. Now consider that in recent time that list of political no marks in those posts has included Amber Rudd, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt*, you begin to see the problem. In theory there is parliamentary oversight, but in reality things are much murkier (and sometimes for sensible reasons).
I am always wary of organisation with large amounts of power that are subject to direct political control, so my trust is in very very short supply, I'm afraid.
* and yes, I remember the bad old days of Jack Straw too, so it's not entirely party political.
in the face of all the breathless hoopla about foldable displays, Apple has remained tight-lipped.
It isn't a shock. Apple are never first to market as a rule, but take some time to get something shiny (and profitable) there. There is little indication that they have any enthusiasm for foldable, and the mass market, like it or not, do tend to pick up on Apple's lead. Look at payment services: there wasn't much real take up until Apple Pay arrived, then it started to grow. Samsung are desperately trying to innovate to steal a march in the high-end, fighting against apple on one hand, and Chinese competitors on the other. It needs to show something new. Perhaps they've overstretched a little too quickly for now.
"No it was binding. "
No. It wasn't. The Act of Parliament enabling the vote said it was not, and no provisions were put in place in the Act to make it so. That the Prime Minister at the time either did not realise this, or DID realise it and said so anyway speaks volumes about him, the way that he felt he could overstep his authority, and his overweening sense of his own adequacy.
And, as it happens, because "he" said he would implement it, and because the result was in law advisory, it did not constrain any of his successors to do so. Yet the current incumbent chose to. And she's done such a great job of that, hasn't she?
In computing, pretty much any degree with partial BCS accreditation should include content of this type to be able to satisfy the awarding body on accreditation renewal. I know that some do (because I delivered some of it myself when I was teaching).
The question is how much attention are some students paying to it; interestingly, an intern doing some part-time work in our office currently is doing some of this stuff right now in his degree, and we ended up having a discussion yesterday about ethics and the law in the software industry. I think many students see much of the discussion as a bit dry and mostly hypothetical, until you start talking about real cases, and the knock on effects of what they do
Well, say no more. It's only because of no-wits like Johnson, Grayling and Hunt that she isn't held up as one of the more talent-free thought-vacuums to inhabit the Conservative government, judging by her previous record in IT and Internet related matters. It really is a government of the no-talents.
What you also have to consider is that Englebart was working on the West Coast. He'd fought in WWII, and like many of those veterans wanted to see some profound changes in the world afterwards. He was just one of a whole bunch of people who were very much of that progressive West Coast wave, many of whom had read what Bush had to say back in 1945 and thought the idea of augmentation was a good starting point. Lots of the libertarian aspects of the early web were born in that environment, which was like a counterweight to what was going on in places like MIT. Remember also that Taylor has discussed some the networking components via the likes Donald Davies at NPL in the UK, among many others. He wasn't alone in not seeing the path of increasing miniaturisation and personalisation, just look at 2001 from the year after, for example. And that's without thinking about the hypermedia stuff that people like Ted Nelson were doing. There were a lot of ideas flowing around that could be synthesised in new and interesting ways.
But these were academic projects, not commercial for the most part, so collaboration and knowledge sharing was very much tot he fore
Yes, the demo was constructed a bit, but things *were* primitive. Intel's 4004 processor was over two years in the future, and the first ARPANet link was still around a year away. Like James Burke says in Connections, the path of progress is not simple and linear, It's a complex nexus of interlinking influences and discussions, with people repurposing things for novel and unexpected uses. This demo was hugely important for many reasons, andI think some of those aims were laudable. The fact is that every event has unintended consequences, good and bad, so why should this be any different?
Here are just a few things that leap to mind when thinking about how government would run an id project. I currently do not trust the government to:
1. look after what might be extremely sensitive data properly
2. uphold their duty to properly safeguard what would be a single, hugely attractive point of attack for any number of malfeasants
3. not overstretch their remit to use the data in ways which are appropriate or sensible, and not to indulge in progressive feature creep
4. be able to define sensible standards or protocols for accessing and using this data for third parties who would need to have some kind of access to it.
5. deliver what would need to be a large, highly available, secure system with sensible time and budget constraints given past endeavours
6. run me a warm bath
7. find its collective arse with an atlas