Re: Time frame not included
To be clear - I absolutely want Elon to continue running Twitter ... into the ground.
One less platform for ranty, rightist suck ups.
207 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Mar 2019
>We have lots of regulations but no-one polices them and even less people enforce them.
Indeed, and that is entirely intentional. That way the politicians can say they introduced "tough" regulations to deal with a problem, while actually not interfering at all with the aberrant practices and profiteering of the companies who will give them cushy sinecures in the future.
Really? Such grandiloquent, self-satisified rhetoric over weights and measures? You really don't have any unique freedom in the US.
I live in Europe. I can cook in any measures I want, set my car to miles or kilometres, or use an app on my phone which converts it to bloody furlongs if I want. Oh, the packaging in the shops doesn't have non-metric measurements? Because they haven't been widely used for a couple of centuries?
You have no unique or exceptional freedom in the "Land of the so-called Free". Maybe your schools should teach comparative history and politics as well as imperial and metric weights and measures.
>There are very, very few people alive who experienced "empire"[*] these days. I doubt it's enough to swing an election.
That the actual empire no longer exists does not mean that ideas, ideologies and delusions based around "empire" cannot have an effect on politics or political culture in the here and now. You merely have to note the use of the "Empire 2.0" idea in the post-Brexit debates about the UK's position in the world to realise that.
Early 2000s I was working for a US software company. They axed about half our folk and expected the rest of us to pick up the slack. Sent a VP across the pond to tell us that this was a "stretch opportunity" for us, to show the company how well we could perform. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to offer him a neck-stretching opportunity ;-)
We were planning on borrowing your aircraft carrier -- you know, the one without aircraft so of little other practical use. But as it turns out, it doesn't even go. Tory economics. How's that working out for you down there? I suppose you can hope it'll at least float on the sea of turds you're flushing directly into the sea.
>Not being a member state doesn't have to prevent us remaining friends and collaborators.
Indeed. Likely the only thing required would be for the UK government to act like either of those things. Maybe refrain from passing legislation which aims at unilaterally changing the terms of the withdrawal agreement already reached and just work quietly behind the scenes to achieve a mutually satisfactory compromise. Perhaps stop the continual stream of belligerent, anti-EU rhetoric from government ministers. Of course, they cannot halt the flood of rabid anti-EU bile which emanates from the UK's right-wing press, but they might, for example, refrain from feeding it.
Any of the above likely to transpire? Didn't think so. In the end, the UK will have the relationship with the EU which it chooses to build. On present evidence, it may not be an easy one.
Of course not. But what happens once absolutely everything becomes "subscription only"?
BMW luxury features are just the stalking horse for generalising the model in the market.
Just as Adobe were the stalking horse in the software market and as the years pass fewer and fewer non-subscription options exist as the model takes a stranglehold on the market, including far less specialised markets than Adobe's. Of course, the tech-savvy can always find alternatives, but that really doesn't generalise. Most consumers when faced with a fait accompli, end up complying.
"Your brakes operate at 50% of the optimal possible efficiency until you subscribe to the 'super-brake' feature.
>The free speech Mr. Musk can exercise is limited by the governmental institution SEC
Not at all. He was free to refuse and accept the consequences. He chose not to do that. Reading the excerpts from court's judgement in the article makes clear the judge's undisguised contempt for this self-serving line of argumentation.
Why can't we 'ban' violent people? One 9mm in the forehead and they won't be violent any more. If they have siblings, they each get one, too. They were a parent, yep, they each get one, too.
Presumably as a first step in the right direction you are going to off yourself, as you certainly seem quite a violent sort of person?
And I guess National Defense Magazine is less indulgent of Martians than ElReg:
"[Thank you. Your comment will be displayed soon after reviewing.]"
There are no comments displayed under the news article amanfrommars was commenting on ;-)
It does say in the article that they need judicial authorisation and that there is an “expedited” court process they follow to get it. It is true, though, that the author of the article rather skates over that aspect and more information on it would improve the article and provide a better context and better understanding.
>Do you not think England would vote to remove Scotland from the union?
No idea. We always hear this refrain that we are a burden. So, go ahead, free yourselves of the burden. England could hold a referendum to leave the United Kingdom ;-) It could get us to the inevitable quicker as it would swerve the issue of older Scots who still support the Union through a sense of economic, social and cultural inferiority to mighty England :-) I guess that way we could all find out the truth about which nation is a burden to the other, beyond the lies and cooked books of GERS and an economy which is still almost completely at the mercy of Westminster's economic and financial policies.
>We know. If Scotland wanted independence they should have let England vote too. Although their wet dreams of the UK funding their strop would have been laughed off even harder.
Good to see the condescension remains as unchanged as the roguery . Only to be expected, of course :-)
Nope. They sold Scotland willingly. Even vote to remain after being promised candy and rainbows if they left.
The Union was massively unpopular in Scotland. The country was sold down the river by a clique of aristocrats who had political and financial interests south of the border which had always existed, but intensified after the Union of the Crowns. That they had thrown a lot of their money at a ridiculous "colonial" adventure certainly added to their corruptibility. Bribing them was not difficult for the Crown. What's more, the coercive measures taken to browbeat Scotland, such as the Alien Act of 1705, are rarely if ever mentioned by those who peddle cosy unionist myths. Myths which, unfortunately, are still widely believed :-(
The 2014 referendum was won partly by the "vow" (made in bad faith by the unionists) that something close to devo max would be implemented if Scotland remained and partly by the argument that we would be out of the EU if we left and that it would take years and years to get back in, if Spain even let us (all of which was and remains a bunch of old unionist cobblers).
Times may change, but rogues be constant.
I was let go from a tech support position with a large US software house many years ago as they moved much of the support function to India. I worked my month notice "knowledge-sharing" with my "replacements" but the day I finally walked out the door for the last time, they were still sending me the most basic of support cases as they either didn't understand, or didn't want to understand, how to troubleshoot user issues. The fact that they all wanted to be programmers and thought of tech support merely as a foot in the door may have had something to do with it. Not surprisingly, the company in question developed a reputation for providing execrable technical support. Not that they cared very much, I imagine. They had something of a monopoly in their market.
Just as Madras College isn't a college and the Nicholson Institute isn't ... a great place to go play rugby when there is a gale blowing -- I remember quite a few of my team mates being quite ill during the crossing ;-) Regardless of name (Academy, High School, Grammar, College) most schools catering for pupils from 11 up in Scotland will be non-selective secondary schools.
This European Digital Identity isn't compulsory:
"What will change for Europeans?
The main novel element offered by the new rules is that everyone will have a right to have a European Digital Identity Wallet which is accepted in all Member States. But at the same time, there will be no obligation."
The "trusted identities" for this voluntary scheme would actually have to be created in and provided by the member states, so if digital IDs are made compulsory in order to track us ubiquitously (but are they really needed for that? Google might snigger a little at that thought) it will be done by the will of the member states not the EU.
And that has precisely nothing to do with compulsory physical ID cards required by many European nation states. That said, I think it's a tendency of all governments/state machineries to try to get as much information as they can get away with on their citizens. It would be naive to believe they have not already gathered and combined many datasets from our disparate, supposedly discrete "identities" without needing to do it through national ID schemes. While national IDs are not currently all-encompassing data profiles, at least not in most countries in Europe, there will inevitably be a push in that direction by most European states.
One of the definitions for the verb "to expect" is to think or believe that something should be or happen a particular way. In that sense, one absolutely should expect their private communications to remain private. That does not mean one should expect that governments and corporations are going to respect that expectation. The motion for debate seems oddly phrased. Which, perhaps, we should have come to expect from El Reg's motions for debate ;-)
What the article says is that as a result of the overall policy of "cloud first" a larger proportion of the workloads which will remain in the data centre will be "sensitive". That "sensitivity" they say, justifies the award to this supplier as uniquely qualified from a security perspective. Add your own dose of salt to taste ;-)
>Those were businesses with excellent risk management and entrepreneurial flair
If we just take the example of Lehman Brothers, it's collapse does not suggest it had excellent risk management at that time. It was ludicrously exposed in the US subprime mortgages market. The pursuit of easy money turned out to be rather costly.
Of course, as I am unable to see into the future, perhaps I am wrong and the EU, and with it the EIB, will collapse some time soon. Speculative doom-mongering to that effect is, however, almost as old as the EU project itself. Personally, I think it rather more likely that the UK's collapse will precede that event. We are all free to speculate on the future.
As of this moment, I don't see any sign of an imminent collapse of the EIB.
>Thank goodness for El Reg.
On that we can agree :-) To be honest, it's stretching it to call what goes on BTL on any of the online newspaper sites debate, though to be fair it does mimic quite closely the political "performance" one can observe on a regular basis in the House of Commons: lots of immature posturing, jeering, braying around lies, smears and innuendo.