Posts by Citizen of Nowhere 207 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Mar 2019
> Your mental gymnastics to defend the EU aint going well
Who’s defending the EU? All I’m pointing out is that your jingoistic interpretation of events contradicts itself. Sovereign EU nations were free to do what they decided, regardless of when and why they did so. The UK in the EU could have done same whenever and for whatever reason they decided.
So, the UK could not have have gone it alone within the EU and if they had tried the EU would have stolen their vaccine orders and at the same time the other nation states within the EU did create their own supply lines alongside the EU one without that being stolen by the EU. That has all the coherence and objectivity of a Boris Johnson article on straight bananas.
>This being a proven and demonstrated benefit of not being in the EU hence meeting the criteria.
Believing that spending more money to arrive at roughly the same end result in terms of fully vaccinated population while having amongst the highest deaths per 100,000 in Western Europe is a "benefit". There is, indeed, the kind of thinking which produced Brexit in the first place.
It would be ironic if they hadn't ;-)
"HMRC pays rent on its 600 regional offices from a company called Mapeley Steps Limited, which is registered in the tax haven Bermuda, as the result of a private finance initiative (PFI)."
April 2016
https://www.indy100.com/news/hmrc-actually-rents-offices-from-a-company-registered-in-a-tax-haven-7294711
"HM Revenue and Customs has struck a deal to relocate tax officials into a new office complex in Newcastle owned by major Conservative party donors through an offshore company based in a tax haven..."
November 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/25/hmrc-to-relocate-to-newcastle-office-owned-by-tory-donors-via-tax-haven
>who completely refuse to comprehend the clear fact that being fully vaccinated and boosted DOES NOT STOP YOU FROM CATCHING OR SPREADING COVID
Your caps lock is stuck. Probably some potentially deadly substance spilled onto your keyboard.
You can catch and spread this virus even while vaccinated; you are far less likely to do so than someone who is not vaccinated, however, on the evidence we currently have.
>Nope. They can choose to get vaccinated should they so wish.
Which partially protects them from infection. Whether or not targeted vaccination campaigns for the vulnerable is the future depends on how the virus evolves and the situation develops. Since it is infecting very large numbers currently more variants are to be expected and may not be similarly attenuated. Hospitalisations are going up quickly in many countries currently, placing health systems under considerable strain. While I am not in favour of compulsory vaccinations, the vacuity of the statements of many opposed to vaccination and the liberal sprinkling of bacofoil headgear conspiracy theories hardly convinces me they are the best people to listen to concerning a public health emergency.
>a new Oracle Cloud software solution and is expected to replace more than 40 legacy systems with integrated, reliable and secure software that can be accessed from any mobile device
Data and deity willing, which seems highly unlikely. More likely, they will end up with two of the legacy systems replaced and an arcane mess of middleware plumbing precariously connecting the others to their "Oracle Cloud software solution".
> All the same, having lived outside the UK, in the EU, for half my life I think I have a better grasp of the reality of the situation than many of the commenters here.
Doesn't work that way. I have lived way more than half my adult life in the EU as well, 23 years in total. I don't get to claim that the mere fact of living here gives me a better grasp of the reality of the situation. Neither do you. A non sequitur remains a non sequitur whether you are for or against Brexit ;-)
It is a court. In the same way that the UK Supreme Court is. Claiming that it cannot be fair and independent may or may not be correct, but if applied to the ECJ that applies equally to every judicial instance on the planet.
The UK agreed that Northern Ireland would remain inside the single market. Every single participant in that market agreed that the ECJ would be the body which interpreted EU law if there were dispute concerning its interpretation and application. If that is not accepted, the obvious conclusion is for Northern Ireland to leave the single market, and the UK to live with the consequences of their utterly unproven assertion that the ECJ will not interpret EU law fairly and independently concerning the single market in Northern Ireland.
One of the roles of the court is to interpret EU law in disputes between the Commission or other EU institutions and member states. It does not "arbitrate". Insofar as the NI protocol kept Northern Ireland in the EU single market, with EU law surrounding that market enforceable within its territory, why would it not be the ECJ which determines whether EU law is being properly interpreted? The UK will have the same standing before the Court as any member state. The purview of the Court is limited to aspects of EU law which remain valid within Northern Ireland.
If you wish to be in the single market, you must obey its rules. One of those rules is that individual member states accepted the authority of the ECJ to interpret EU law where there are disputes over whether it is being properly applied.
In its role as interpreter of EU law, the court has ruled against the EU institutions in favour of member states on many occasions. As indeed the UK Supreme Court has ruled against the UK government when interpreting law. Interestingly there have been no initiatives coming from Brussels to curb its powers as a result such as those currently being floated at Westminster as a result of the rulings of the UK Supreme Court.
If the UK intends to respect the EU law pertaining to the single market, as it agreed, in order to keep Northern Ireland in it, why would it reject the role of the ECJ, which is accepted by every other participant in the single market?
But the man leading the current discussions for the UK side is the very man who negotiated the agreement. The current PM is the very PM who signed it. Even by the usual standards of political hypocrisy disowning it on those grounds, or indeed that they didn’t read it, understand it or intend to keep faith with it, would by a doozy.
The main projects and funding discussed in this article and which the chairman of the parliamentary committee is complaining UK companies and institutions cannot access are part of Horizon Europe. This is a wholly EU research and innovation program. Access was negotiated as part of the withdrawal agreement and, like some - rather major - British responsibilities under the withdrawal agreement, has yet to be implemented. I’m sure it can be resolved by both parties honouring the commitments they made in that agreement. If one side won’t honour their commitments, however, I don’t see why the other is so obliged. Takes two to tango.
It would be nice if peace and prosperity on the island of Ireland could be promoted in a way beneficial to all without being jeopardised by petty political concerns. It seems UK politicians cannot overcome their resentment of the EUCJ and would rather sacrifice the agreement they themselves signed on the altar of “taking back control”.
Difficult (for me at least) to fathom how someone who specifically points out the potentially lethal results of data of/about Afghanis collected under the previous regime falling into the hands of the Taliban and still comes the conclusion "Not Yet" rather than "Not Ever" in answer to the question being polled.
>Anyone working with datasets knows that anonymised data can easily be de-anonymised. The higher the level of detail in a dataset, the easier it is to find unique points that can trace back to individuals.
This. And the fact that datasets can be combined and once they are, what appeared "securely" anonymous in only one of them may not remain so after the data is combined.
> if the data is anonymised, using it causes no harm whatsoever to anybody, regardless of consent.
Unfortunately, nobody can guarantee that anonymised data cannot be de-anonymised. In fact, there was an article on El Reg a short while ago showing that in many cases doing so was a trivial exercise.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/16/anonymising_data_feature/
>I have seen plenty of deep fried pizza, however, and even tried it once. It was truly disgusting.
No doubt true if you take some shop-bought crap and ram it into a fish fryer. Done right, the Italian way (or more correctly the Pugliese way), fried pizza is delicious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerotti
No, I'm saying that contrary to your statement otherwise, it is not a government agency. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a US constitutional lawyer, so I doubt my opinion on whether that amendment applies is of much worth. I'm fairly confident that working with government agencies doesn't make a private corporation a government agency, on the other hand.
Back when I did tech support, a lot of the bugs we came across were related to text encodings and how they were (mis)handled going between different applications and systems. Once got a box of beer sent to me from Norway after I managed to identify a bug with the handling of the thorn character used in Norwegian and get it squashed. I guess I don't have the right mindset (cybersecurity researcher/cybercriminal) because I would never have figured out how to systematically exploit them.
Where I live the authorities do not cut back growth on many of the public grassed areas, nor do quite a lot of owners, right here in the city. Nobody seems to mind. It allows insects on which we depend rather badly to thrive. It is cut at the end of the season ("late cutting"). Makes more sense to me than all those lawns cut with stripes and bushes pruned into ridiculous geometric shapes. Of course, as in most things, opinions and local ordinances vary.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
