Posts by Helcat 298 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Nov 2019
If this did happen, all that Google would do is spawn a few shell companies that'd own shares in a new company that 'owns' Android et al, all of which would ultimately be owned by the people who own Google.
Old tale: Old trick: Nothing the US can do about that. Especially as the shell companies will be external to the US so outside their jurisdiction - or whatever legal trickery is needed to do to meet requirements without losing anything.
If you wanted to know where a LOT of 'missing' or 'lost' DR Who episodes were... Bob Monkhouse was the person who likely had them. He had a massive collection of them on their original media, and a chip on his shoulder when it came to the BBC's habit of reusing that media (the reason for a lot of lost episodes was the BBC reused the magnetic media they were stored on, wiping the episodes in the process - hence they became 'lost').
Had a lovely chat with him during a chance encounter: He'd refused to 'lend' (give) the BBC the missing episodes back due to their 'criminal vandalism' of destroying their copies (he bought those he had off the BBC - having some connections within the corporation). However, if you had some that he was missing... (unfortunately I didn't. Strange that, I know but...)
Not sure if his estate allowed the BBC access to those copies after Mr Monkhouse died, but it was around then that a lot of previously missing episodes became available on DVD...
And yes: That Bob Monkhouse (if you know the name). Was a really nice guy.
Less about profit and more about meeting targets: When conviction rates are used to mark success, does it matter if the person convicted was the right person, or even if a crime had occurred?
If the investigation isn't sound, then why expose the poor quality of evidence? Just push ahead and get that important conviction and let the person contest it, if they feel it worth their while. It's the same approach as pressuring the accused into confessing by pointing out they'll be locked up for X time while waiting for their court appearance which will be longer than the time they'll serve in prison for that offence : This is why so many of the UK 'rioters' were convicted so quickly: They were given the choice of waiting months for their court appearance, or to admit it and be free before they'd appear in court. When the conviction doesn't carry a CRB mark, it's not worth waiting so admit the crime, right? That it does leave a record and that can be used in a later prosecution isn't mentioned, and that gives the police more leverage to get a confession later for a different case.
That's why I'm sceptical about confessions: It's not always certain that the confession was genuine or coerced.
"Switching duplicate tower off won't reduce capacity as existing radios are not at capacity"
This isn't quite true: Each tower has receiving equipment that allows a limited number of connections. So there's a limit on how many devices can connect to make a call or transfer data at a time. This is why devices 'ping' the towers but don't maintain connection unless they're transferring data/making a call. It's why there are times of the year when the network is jammed due to the volume of calls: The cell towers simply can't cope with that many simultaneous connections.
It's been getting more noticeable as more devices are being made internet connected (car infotainment systems for example) - stream data to the car and that's one less connection available for others to use where as a device on standby just pings the towers at intervals to update it's status and which tower it's nearest should it need to connect for a call or data transmission.
Okay, some issues here: By merging networks, you merge loads. By decommissioning 'duplicate' equipment, you then move that load onto the remaining kit. If that's not sufficient to carry the signals/connections, you get more disconnects.
This is the current issue with the introduction of connectivity in cars, and the increase in 3G/4G/5G devices - they're all fighting over the limited connectivity with the towers. End result is more lost connections where there isn't the capacity.
What's needed, unfortunately, is for capacity to be increased, be that through better kit or more towers. Both will cost money: What's the betting the merged 3/Voda will be willing to invest what it'd take?
Instead they go on about coverage and sweep capacity issues under the carpet: The former can be addressed by slapping a single tower out where coverage is poor, the latter requires that investment in better kit.
Having worked in the NHS in IT, the main cause of breaches was NHS Digital itself: They gave access to the NHS Net to 3rd parties and were not too diligent to ensure the rules for such connections were enforced - our network team traced one such connection out onto the internet so shut it down, much to the annoyance of said 3rd party who kicked up a fuss until confronted with that trace information...
But there were also individual departments who felt having internet access was necessary without having that PC isolated from the network (hence why our network guys ran network traces like that - wanted to keep our network safe, and we had segmented networks and internal and external firewalls - sounded like overkill but it worked, which was the main thing)... was more pronounced amongst GP surgeries, and small trusts than the larger ones. Issue is funding and understanding of IT - the trust I was with barely funded IT, but we managed and were originally a rather disciplined team. Change in leadership (got a director who was ex-NHS Digital) and things took a nose dive, resulting in some irritating incidents but no actual breaches (thankfully). But yes, I think there's a lot of security nightmares out there in IT land, not just public sector, but the root cause is likely the underfunding and poor understanding and poor resourcing of IT departments. Makes me think BOFH should be the play book for all IT professionals on how to handle manglement :p
That assumes they got 6000 iphones back and that the scam wasn't discovered and stopped before that point.
It also assumes that the scammers got to sell all the phones they were sent rather than some being seized and returned when the scam was uncovered.
So the $2.5 million would be the retail value of the iPhones that would have been sent out to replace the fakes, if they were sent and if none were recovered. It seems to be common practice to quote the maximum value as damages rather than try to calculate the actual damages, and that's to maximise the penalty as they'd not be likely to get all of that $2.5 Million back.
Some of them rely on the clock speed of the CPU and don't adjust/adapt to higher speeds found in modern systems, so the game plays so much faster.
So much so that when I installed the original mech warrior game on a newer PC some years ago, and hoped in on the first mission, it was over before I could see the enemy approach.
Was an interesting experiment - I wasn't sure what would happen, but thought I'd give it a go and see. Game ran: That's the main thing. Just... a little too quickly without an emulator to slow it down.
So, the AI makes changes it wasn't told to make, messes things up so the computer won't boot... and the solution is to get the AI to fix it?
Okay... well, it's broke already: What's the problem? It's not like the AI can make things worse, can it? Can it?!?
Flip a coin: Heads, AI fixes its mistake. Tails: Get a new computer. Edge, however: Hope you get out of the building before it burns down.
Was wondering if it's more like Russia's repurposing parts of the kit rather than using Starlink as is. Could also be a false flag approach: Make it look like they're using Starlink kit in the drones to get Musk to turn off the Starlink system Ukraine is using.
Basically we don't really have enough information to have an informed opinion on this other than that we don't have enough information.
"only OVO will deal with those meters!"
Interesting - I wanted to move off OVO to another supplier but they wouldn't accept my account for electricity due to the meter - and OVO wouldn't replace it (apparently it's OVO's responsibility to replace the meter). Now you've got me wondering if that's the kind of meter I've got.
Weird things you learn on El Reg...
Here's a rather cynical theory: This is planned in order to make us older IT professionals obsolete (or force us to learn new tricks), while teaching the younger generation the MS way who will then come in and kick 'grandpa' out of their job 'cause the youngsters know the system better than the older folk.
In doing so, they reduce the salary budget 'cause you don't have to pay the older, far more experienced and therefor valuable staff: You just hire the youngsters just out of college who 'know better' than the older folk 'cause the skills the older folk have is now obsolete and they're now no better than the younger folk.
It's a win, isn't it?
Well, other than companies retaining old tech for as long as they can, so they need the people who can keep it going a bit longer, or moving to alternative platforms 'cause the constant change being pushed by MS isn't healthy for the business.
Often it's a question of capex v opex. Opex, cloud is more expensive so those pushing cloud focus on the capex. They also don't admit that the initial costs are the lure and the prices will ramp up quickly once that honeymoon period is over and you don't have the specialist staff available any more who supported on-prem.
It's why, if you look back to the early adopters, they moved to hybrid or pure on-prem within a few years, but they were touted as examples of how big business was embracing the future, and the future is Cloud.
Just ignore the reliance on someone else's hardware, the quality of their staff, your connection to their servers, their security, the potential they can get in and view your data/copy it/sell it et al: They won't because the reputational damage would put them out of business.
If they're caught, that is.
But they have the techs and you don't so how would you know? Okay, that's conspiracy territory: You will have techs to maintain what IT remains on your prem. The cloud supplier only supplies techs to support their infrastructure, not what you're putting on the VM's you've built. You don't save so much on staff as you think because you still need people who know what they're doing to implement the systems needed to support your business, you just don't need the hardware specialists you never really had unless you had a lot of on prem hardware 'cause supporting the servers was only a small part of your IT tech staff's duties rather than a full time job.
And all the while the costs go up 'cause you're using more and more of the cloud services available and aren't cleaning up after you 'cause it's not on your servers, and it's easy to forget what you've got.
Oh, and the supplier isn't going to tell you that you're paying for stuff you're not using: That's pure profit for them.
Yes, we've just been through that latter one: Found there were orphaned (unattached) disk we were paying for that we didn't need. Also found we had servers that were supposed to be used for short term testing that were sitting there, unused, but still being paid for (Business needs changed and demands shifted so people got distracted and simply forgot).
In theory you're time sharing those staff, so you'd be sharing the cost with others, and in theory, only paying for when you need them to do something rather than paying them in case you need them to do something: That's why it's claimed there is salary savings with cloud.
However, that also means you don't know what skills they have, or how good they are: They're hired by the cloud provider to do a job, and that's what they do.
You're also bound to their SLA: You want quick response, you'll pay premium for it.
That's how they make their money: That's why it's not as cheap as on prem. You hire your staff: They work to your rules. You go cloud and rely on the supplier's staff: They work to the supplier's rules and to the suppliers priorities.
So you're right, but... that's now how things are presented by the sales-droids who tout cloud as the best solution, ever.
Back in the late 90's when cable was first rolling out, they were not allowed to put up poles: Everything had to be buried. Even BT was supposed to be taking down poles and using buried cable.
BT made a start, but never did complete that transition, obviously, but there's still a push to reduce the number of poles in use...
Seems that's being ignored.
There's even areas with a local ordinance forbidding suspended wires... which is also being ignored.
Guess the local bird population is happy, though.
Yup: I got lazy in my writing. Mostly because I'd been having a hard day (aren't we all) and wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been.
That and I'm not that good at spelling: A hangover from my childhood where speed was more important than accuracy. Or legibility. Some odd idea that we were entering the age of the computer that'd handle all that trivial stuff.
And by UK TV, I was referring to the BBC rather than legislation as they're the ones who want everyone to have a TV licence* and they're the ones who get the money from said licence*. The law is that a licence is only needed for broadcast signal: It's not required for on demand. The bad old BBC, however, via their enforcement gang, Crapita**, would have you believe otherwise.
*When reminded, I do make the effort to get the spelling correct.
**Considering the tricks these scum try, calling them Crapita is being polite. Their techniques seem to come from the Mafia's handbook for extortion, only they will abuse the legal system to enforce their extortion efforts which helps them bully people into paying for a licence they may not need.
Oh, but "Enforcement of that law is done by Crapita." isn't correct: Craptia doesn't have any enforcement powers: They're not enforcement officers, despite them liking to present them self as such: They're licence inspectors (and sales-scum). They can inspect your property, with a valid warrant issued by a magistrate*** (Scotland it's a Sheriff, I believe) and usually accompanied by a police officer. But if they still have to to court to prosecute if they find proof that you're watching broadcast TV without a licence - although the courts are using some shortcut system to prosecute the accused that doesn't allow them to defend themselves (apparently). Anyway, Crapita are inspectors, not enforcement: They claim to be the latter as part of their intimidation efforts.
*** This is where they're likely to be inventive with the truth and why they more than earn their 'crapita' title.
UK TV requires a license to watch broadcast TV, including news. There's been a noted reduction on people buying licenses over recent years so that would be fewer people able to legally watch live broadcast news (not just the BBC - any live broadcast).
So this could just be a move by people to on-demand services instead, so I'm not surprised at all that online sources are gaining popularity while broadcast (TV) are on the decline.
Oh, wayleaves.
So, used to be a Wayleave officer working for a rival to BT, so this does take me back a bit.
The wayleave is needed to cross private property - including the property to which the service is being provided (it's part of the service agreement). If it can't be obtained from the landowner then the provision for statutory power applies if, and only if, there is no alternative provision of an >essential< service.
Telephony is considered essential, and it's under the telecommunications act that Openreach has (or had) statutory powers, but only if there was no other service provider already supplying telephony service to the site. So if VM has their services available, even if people aren't subscribed to VM: Openreach do not have access to those statutory powers and so would need permission (wayleave) to go and lay those cables.
Now, there's another reason they don't want to push those statutory powers like they used to: Fibre may not be classed as telephony. It's internet. They'd have to prove that it should be classed as telephony to get access to those statutory powers (plus they'd have to do so where there's no alternative provider - and it's possible that mobile telephony will count as an alternative, thereby fulfilling the role of 'essential service'), and it's also possible that if BT are removing the old landlines (which they are), that they need to put in fibre first, which won't be covered by their statutory powers as the essential service provider as they're already providing telephony and this is a new service, hence they would need a wayleave...
Makes the whole statutory powers thing a bit less certain.
"People are going to have to do that anyway. "
Yep. That doesn't detract from the problem I mentioned: VoIP systems need power to the house. The old copper phonelines provided that power. So if you had an old style hand set, you could still make calls even when the power is out - rather useful if there's an accident due to said power cut.
Hence why I mentioned people need to consider a UPS on the VoIP system / router in their house so they've some resilience on a power cut, if they don't get a reliable mobile signal. That the rollout of Fibre is being used as an excuse to disconnect copper (it's what they did to me when I swapped) when it's not necessary (they've a few years to go before the 'planned' disconnect) shows they want to push people off copper as quickly as they can, meaning people may not be prepared for the swap. I know, when I did my research into VoIP that people aren't eager to swap due to a reliance of some systems (medical alert systems, alarms etc) that don't work via VoIP, so for some, losing a landline is a serious issue.
This also affects businesses - the company I work for was lucky their alarm system was compatible with internet connection as the copper line was disconnected suddenly (apparently the line got damaged and BT weren't going to replace it...). Cost a lot less to install the module needed than to replace the entire alarm system (fire and intruder) with one that was. Had to be done at some point, but would have been better if it had been a planned swap.
And that's why there's a risk with this push to fibre: It's also a push to get people off the old copper phonelines, and for some, that means planning out what needs doing to support that move.
Seems people aren't mentioning one issue with fibre rollout: That the old copper cable is removed at that point meaning the old phone systems are removed: You have to swap to VOIP.
Issue there is VOIP requires power where the old copper phonelines provided that power. So now you're at risk if there's a power cut: You also lose your phoneline. True, mobiles may cover you, but there are places where you won't get reliable mobile signal (I live in one such place) so a land line is pretty much essential. So having UPS on your broadband/VOIP kit is kind of essential. And a battery backup should the power be down for more than a few hours (also comes in handy if you need to power other things while the mains is down, but... need the right kind of kit depending on the output required).
Workers would like AI if it saved them time?
Well, yes. The problem, however, is the time it takes to give AI the initial instructions, to then review the output and compare that to the requirements to then refine the instructions to get a new output to review and refine until the output is to specification to then CHECK the output is actually correct and hope it is else you'd have to start all over again*.
It would take a lot less time to just ask someone to do the work, for them to do it, noting they'd ask for clarification where needed, to get a second person to check it and then submit it.
Much less time.
* Just got an example of 'AI' output earlier, shared to the tech team. How many 'R's in Strawberry? Apparently 2, and when asked to highlight them, it highlighted all three then apologised for highlighting too many as there were only 2. Honest!
"I thought it was all run by the outsourcer capita, but that looks like just the road charging side."
It's likely it's another branch of the same company, just under a different name. Know they did an efficiency review where I used to work, and they recommended outsourcing IT, and helpfully supplied a couple of firms who they'd recommend. Those firms were all part of the larger Capita group: Just another ploy to get their claws in deeper into the public purse.
No, we didn't take them up on that: They'd been told to leave IT out of their assessment (so it was the first area they looked at) and not to present recommendations about IT (so it was the first thing they presented), and were laughed at as they had to admit that outsourcing would cost more for an inferior service. But they had to recommend doing so anyway.
LLM's lack awareness and context: They just bash together anything they can find that might vaguely relate to a subject and present it as the answer.
Hence why it returned a mix of Oracle, MySQL and PostreSQL commands when asked to provide a TSQL script to perform a task. To the LLM, it's all SQL so it should work, right?
It's also why it returned some rather suspect claims about William the Conqueror (aside from not knowing he was also known as William the Bastard, a title he didn't like). Having read quite a few history texts on his achievements, the errors in the LLM response were blaringly obvious to me, but to anyone who didn't know or have access to such historical works, the LLM would appear to be returning an authorative text.
LLM's are not intelligent: I wouldn't even rate it for auto-complete - it's too poor a model for even that. Rather it's a very bad text bash that'll create false and misleading answers to things you could find easier by old fashioned online searches, or even going to the library.
Oh, this one's clear cut: Ireland and UK laws are rather specific about contract law and workers rights: You can't just terminate someone's employment at will, which seems to be what Musk thought he could do.
That's a lack of due diligence - something Musk has been accused of before.
I know of a few UK companies that have fallen foul of this over the years - all of which were American owned, which suggests it's not an isolated mistake. Those affected also got decent compensation when it went to tribunal, which goes to show that it's better to check than assume.
2029 would be in line with the ban on new ICE's that had been put back to 2035, but labour might bring forwards again to 2030.
Add in the push for air source heat pumps, which seem to be more like electric central heating (as some who have them have reported), plus replacing gas appliances with electric as we'll be an all-electric nation! AND the increase in demand from the expanding data centres and AI sites...
what could possibly go wrong?
(over spend, delays, and the result not being to requirements at a guess).
Everyone makes mistakes. It happens.
What we do to minimise those mistakes, what we to to correct those mistakes, and what we do as a result of those mistakes is very telling about us.
So yes: Lessons learned. The question is: What did they learn and how will they act upon those lessons. After all, learning to hide their mistakes better isn't the same as learning how to spot them better.
My mother was one of those 'Little old ladies': The tales she had of shenanigans during the count were... enlightening.
Specifically: Candidates that tried to distract one of the 'Little Old Ladies' so they could shift some ballot papers from one pile to another*, or add a few more to the pile waiting to be counted. True, they're usually caught, but not always, as my mother noted: She got caught out a few times until she learned the tricks, as did most of the new 'Little Old Ladies' joining the counting team. Yes, there were people watching for this, but there were also candidates that were 'old hands' at such skulduggery, and new how to reduce the risk of discovery.
So while I applaud your recognition of the integrity and superiority of the Little Old Lady counting ballots (and my mother loved the overtime for doing so!), there's still problems and opportunities for scumbag interference...
* This is in the UK, and candidates and their appointed observers can walk around the counting tables to watch the count. One technique they used to distract the counter was to question a particular paper and when the counter's attention moved to that paper, that's when the underhanded action would take place. My mother cottoned on to this, as did the more experienced counters, and caught a few observers in the act. That's when the more experienced candidates marked her station as one to not try messing with.
No election is free of some element of fraud, interference or meddling.
The question is: How much was there and would it make a difference?
In the 2020 US presidential election, there was fraud found, and there was one instance where it was discovered to have flipped the outcome, but for the most part it was not deemed sufficient to change the outcome. This is nothing new - it's normal, depressing as it might be.
Fraud ranges from people voting multiple times to candidates directly interfering with the count. There are efforts to address this (needing ID to vote in the UK for example), but such fraud is rarely sufficient to change the outcome of the vote, and where it is, the outcome tends to be very close and will trigger a recount anyway, and that's where most discrepancies are found.
That's the reality of elections: If there's a way to cheat, someone will try. The only question is: Is it sufficient to change the outcome, and what's been noted is where it is, it's also rather easy to uncover.
As to the 2020 election being stolen - that seemed (to me) to be more a case of Biden did little in the way of campaigning which baffled Trump, and the postal vote favoured the Democrats more, so yes, it would impact the outcome. That doesn't mean anything illegal happened, just that it wasn't a 'normal' election in some regards so it was harder to see what was going on.
I think what didn't help was that with the 2016 election results there was a vocal movement to oppose Trump's presidency 'by any means necessary'. Tends to set things up for the image of skulduggery and criminal acts. But people are people and they say and do things that oft times make no sense to the casual observer.
Punch cards, please!
Got to get them in the right order in the tray to be read, too.
That's why the first thing you do after putting them in the correct order is draw a diagonal line across the tops - makes spotting which ones are out of sequence much easier (especially as they also have a notch taken out of one corner...)
Was rather glad we moved to magnetic tape. Then again, that earned me overtime for every Friday I stayed late to change the tapes while backing up the server.
Then they moved to cassettes and an auto-loader...
I'd hate to work for you if you're so willing to invade a person's privacy, only to assume they're doing something wrong because they took precautions against you spying on them.
Oh, I agree that putting the cover over the camera isn't all that secure and people using computers should be put through training on how to keep their computer secure, but I'd rather people used that lens cover on their laptop than subject us to images of their partner wandering past their home office in a towel having just come out of the shower. Or the kids playing in the background. Or their dog being sick on the sofa (poor thing). Oh, and all that happened while in teams meetings where the organiser asked everyone to put their cameras on...
So it's not just about those who would ignore privacy laws to remote view workers without their knowledge: It also helps protect the rest of us from sights that'd require mind bleach to forget about.
Oddly, mine has a spare. Thought it came with a puncture repair kit, had said puncture, opened boot to get the kit and... found the spare.
It's a '21 plate, so pretty modern.
Okay, okay, it's a 'space saver' temporary tire, but it's been out and in use twice this year (yes, potholes are the tire killer around here), keeping me mobile without the need of calling for help, so I'm not complaining.
Wonder if they'll learn something from this? Or rather, remember something important:
When running a current through a cable, the resistance increases as the cable heats, the less efficient the system is unless it's the heat you actually want out. We should all know this from CPU cooling: The higher the load, the warmer the chip, the slower the system gets.
Same thing applies to electric motors: More load (faster revolutions/heavier mass being moved) = warmer the motor/increase in resistance = more drain on the battery = shorter range due to reduced efficiency.
Cooling the motor will help reduce the loss of efficiency of the motor = less drain on the battery = longer range.
Also, adding more than one fixed gear (Think it's the Porsche Tycan that has two gears) means you don't spin the motor faster to maintain higher speeds = reduced current/draw on the battery = longer range. (this is WHY Porsche added the second gear, too).
After all, people don't want a car just to pootle around town, stop/start traffic, short range, which is what the Nissan Leaf was designed for, and the other EV's have copied - occasionally people want to go further afield, and adding larger batteries adds mass to the vehicle, hence load on the motor, hence reducing the kWh to Miles ratio... Think the BYD Seal started at 4.5 miles per kWh but that dropped to 3.2 kWh during the test trip on the motorway. The BMW was worse, as was the Merc, and the Tesla was around the same as the BYD - an interesting review of EV ranges that demonstrated how range depreciates as the motor warms up while under a constant, prolonged, load.
And now we're seeing the same thing with EV charging: One more reason why, when charging an EV, it starts quick, but the charging slows down over time as the cable warms up. Might only be a small impact, but it is there.
So now they've tried water cooling for the charger: Will people look at water cooling for the motor? Yes, that's the reason for the icon...
It's not the volts that are the problem, it's the amps.
1 to 5 mA: Little electrical shock is felt; upsetting but not painful
6 to 30 mA: Painful shock; loss of muscle control
50 to 150 mA: Extreme pain; possible severe muscle reactions; possible respiratory arrest; possible death
1,000 mA to 4,300 mA: Heart ceases pumping; nerve damage; death likely
10,000 mA (10 amps): Cardiac arrest; severe burns; death likely
Doesn't matter as to the volts, here: It's purely down to the Amps.
Not that holding a high voltage cable is smart: 400v will still make itself known, even at 1mA. It's just not as dangerous as 400v 30A (smokin' boots time!)
"it's just a matter of knowing which columns aren't indexed."
Don't...
I've been asked to look into why a particular job takes ages to run. Oh, they'd checked for missing indexes (I'd shown them how to do that, at least) and there weren't any.
Only the query was referencing tables in other DB's (without using synonyms) so the index hints don't work.
So it was no surprise to find there were NO indexes on any of the tables. Not a one...
"Which has always puzzled me why so many GP surgeries have "touch screen" booking in systems even before COVID."
Mine provides wipes for the screen so you can clean it before or after using it. Plus hand gel so you can clean your hands before and/or after (after being better).
The thing to remember is: Getting infections on your hand isn't quite so bad: It's transferring them to other surfaces that needs to be avoided - especially your face (you'd be surprised how often you touch your own face). That's why hand hygiene was (and is) so important.
But like so many things, it gets forgotten about or not communicated well.
Why can't both sides ditch this pair and find better candidates?
Saying that, I wish the UK political parties would do the same and find decent candidates. In the last election, I had a choice of: Out of area, out of area, out of area, incompetent, WTF, You're kidding me, no way in hell, and... okay, perhaps this one as she's an independent candidate who actually lives locally...
Or... Labour, Greens, Reform, LibDems, Some weird version of Labour, the British Communist party, Conservatives, and finally that independent candidate. Why Labour couldn't find a local candidate I've no idea, and the LibDems were so incompetent they didn't even proof read their own literature.
Anyway: Dear Americans: You have my sympathy.
You're missing one point: What it represented.
Left meant you supported a proposition. Right meant you opposed it. Middle meant you were undecided: It was how you voted. It didn't work as the issues being voted on were bundled together for speed, meaning a representative might support one part, oppose another and be unfamiliar with the rest: SO into the middle they would go.
It's not got any better since.
"This writer has driven a car equipped with the technology, and while it would be unfair to name and shame particular manufacturers, things are a little hit-and-miss. Road signs are not always interpreted correctly, and maps are not always up to date, meaning the car is occasionally convinced that the speed limit differs from reality, with various beeps and vibrations to demonstrate its belief."
My current car has speed alert and signpost recognition: It's fun! (honest! Oh, and if you want fresh sarcasm, I'm selling it by the bucket load right now :p )
There are roads where the system gets my location wrong and assumes I'm on the 30mph road running parallel to the 60mph section of the dual carriageway I'm actually on. with no way to have gotten onto the 30mph side road as that junction is further on. Or 30 when I'm on the motorway (usually when the motorway goes over another road). Then it reads signs incorrectly and sees 50 as 80, for example - especially if the sign is dirty. I've no idea how it came to the 95mph limit it reported, nor the 45mph it showed shortly after - both on the same stretch of country road (60mph limit). Other country roads it simply claims are 30mph and refuses to accept it's wrong.
Now, the idea you can override the system if it tries to slow you down by pressing firmly on the accelerator... I have the same override for the break assist, which also messes up more often than it's useful (aka it's never once been of use, only ever a hinderance or outright danger) - so I know how well things go when using the accelerator to override some faulty 'safety' system.
At least with the speed assist I have, it's turned off (permanently) and I can use cruise control when I want to keep to a steady speed (real useful as it can operate at as low as 20mph). The speed alert I just ignore, despite how useful it might have been, if it was more reliable. Instead, Google Maps is better (yes, seriously - it's far more reliable in regards to the speed limit), and that's still second place to MK1 eyeball and associated human intellect.
But ultimately there's the issue of how this will encourage lazy drivers. If this system does control the speed, then drivers will rely on it to know what the limit is and keep them within that speed limit. Now thing about the issue with recognising a 50mph sign and reading it as 80mph. THEN think about some kid thinking it funny to change the sign with a spray can... I'm sure a speed limit of 150mph is perfectly reasonable...
Okay, you can't DRIVE for more than 10 hours in a day, but you also can't WORK (labour + driving) for more than 6 consecutive hours without a break.
True, it's only a 15 min break required, but the officer could have simply forgot to mention that bit. And he didn't arrest Julian, he just sent Julian to the cells... where there's a bed he can take a nap. And taking away the pager only serves to ensure it is a 15 min break without disturbance... and if Julian happened to fall asleep... at least it wasn't at the wheel.
Please remember that Cameron was against Brexit and was backed into a corner to call that vote.
It was not a party line vote, either: You had MP's from all sides supporting and opposing it. And when the vote came in, Cameron threw his toys out the pram and stormed off in a huff as he had NO plan for Brexit: He'd only considered that we'd stay in, so no need for any plan at all.
Hence the mess.
Actually yes: Because that's the beauty of PR: Everyone's vote suddenly counts for something. Currently, if you don't vote for the winning candidate, your vote is simply discarded - it's meaningless. That's why people vote not for the party they want as it matches their values or whose policies are ones they support, but for the party most likely to win against the party they don't want, regardless of the policies proposed.
That's why Labour won so many seats: The vast majority of people didn't want the Tories back in power. It also does away with this system of moving electoral ward boundaries to gain an advantage - You only need a majority of 1 vote to win a seat? Anything past that one winning vote only has the value of denying that vote for the other candidates. So better to win several seats by a slim margin and lose the other seat by a massive margin.
Or, to give an example: If you've two parties and three seats, each voted for by 100 people each: If the outcome was Seat 1: 51/49, seat 2: 51/49, Seat 3: 1/99 (party A getting the first number of votes, party B getting the second): Party A wins two seats against 1 seat for Party B, but Party B got 66% of the votes.
And this isn't about Labour v Tory v Reform: It's about people having confidence that their vote actually makes a difference.
Problem is: How would PR look: How would it be impliemented: How can we be sure it'd be fair? And no party wants it when they're in power 'cause they wouldn't have that power without FPTP.
You can't undo some things, like Brown selling our gold reserves or raiding the pension pot. Sure, you can start rebuilding our gold reserves, and you can strive to regrow the pension pot, but that'll take money, and Brown left the country rather short on that, thanks.
So yes, it is real. The effects of the Boom-boom-boom-CRASH of Brownomics is also something that takes a long time to recover from.
Same way that Labour have the challenge of sorting out the mess the Tories have made. The question is: Are they going to do a better job, make an equal mess of it, ignore it, or make it worse. That's the problem with politics: We don't know until they've tried.
Telephone sanitisers are useful - just ask... oh, wait, they died out due to an ear infection :p
Not many political types are that useful: Most are in it for the power trip - and the get-rich-quick allure.
Musk... has his uses. Mostly when he throws money at something that's not going to work, but in doing so lets people explore >why< it won't work so they might look at better ways to do something (hyperloop for example). Only down side is all the people who suffer as a result of his tantrums.
Can't say the same for politicians. Well, not all of them - and the ones who are at least half decent never seem to get far. Or... they get caught up with the temptation that power provides.
After all: Power doesn't corrupt, it tempts. It's succumbing to temptation that corrupts. Problem is: The more power, the greater the temptation, and hence the higher the probability of corruption. But that's my spin on that old saying.
Why stop at Musk? I can think of quite a few political figures I'd love to see move to the IIS... with no way back.
Putin
Jinping
Kim Jung Un
Trump
Biden
Starmer
Sunak
Trudeau
Swinney
And I'm sure there's a lot more who would server the public interest more by being up there than down here.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
