Posts by wolfetone 4896 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Aug 2011
I did think it was unusual that I was shown an advert by the Conservatives on YouTube, as I'm not (and have no intention to be) a Tory voter.
I did my little bit for the election. I let it play for 7 seconds and then skipped the ad. I think the advert was for 30 seconds, but skipping the advert on the 7th second meant that the Tories would be charged for the whole 30 seconds. If I skipped right on the 5th second, they wouldn't have been charged anything.
systemd-free Devuan hits stable 1.0.0 status
"They made you pay up to £72K before anyway if you were well off. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the well off pay for their own care - and why should a valuable home be excluded. The money is taken from your estate. Seems rather generous to me excluding the last £100K."
The NHS is "cradle to grave", and every single one of us pays for it. I wouldn't mind if dimentia was self inflicted, like liver cirrhosis is to alcoholics and CPOD is to 40-a-day chain smokers. But dimentia can affect us all and isn't prejudice against who we are. We've paid in to a system that has been systematically destroyed by a Conservative agenda where they want to implement an American-style health and social care system, where no matter what illness you have, if your chequebook isn't big enough you're not getting treated. Thats vile and inhumane.
"We have an aging population, and the current approach (and the pensions triple lock too) is unsustainable - and anyway why should the working be subsidising the well off and retired?"
We have all the money in the world to go to wars to murder innocent people, but we can't spare a few quid to keep Dorris in heating and condensed milk?
"and anyway why should the working be subsidising the well off and retired?"
Why should those who are now retired (well off or not) have spent their working lives to clean the arse of people like you who were too young to do anything for themselves? It's called society. Those who can help those who can't. If the funding for such things was written on your P60 or council tax form so you could see where your money went, we're talking pennies per month. It's nothing. We're one of the richest countries in the world, why can't we help those who have spent their lives working?
"Yes, she's a hard nosed bitch."
But at what point is she a hard nosed bitch? She changes her mind more often than she changes her knickers and leather trousers. Strikes me she's a clueless bitch.
"Can't the government just require all ISPs (including VPNs) to perform man-in-the-middle interception on all secure traffic?"
How does that help? All that allows is access to private and secure data.
Would you appreciate some wanker intercepting the traffic between your site and Amazon when making a purchase? Or would you appreciate it if someone was spying on your comunications between you and some random woman you met on Match.com?
Liberty is something to be fought for, not to have concessions made on.
Frau May came out with her party's manifesto, basically saying if you have dimentia the state will claim your home and assets above £100,000 to "pay for your care". Even though they'd have paid in to the system their entire lives.
Everyone hated the idea. Then the next day May says "well it'll be up for discussion". Within a day she changed her mind, did a U-turn.
And you expect her to get the best deal for Brexit?
Al Qaeda have/had rules on the use of mobile technology during their "meetings". It involved going to the one location, taking apart the mobile phone by removing the battery and sim card. You'd leave it all there bar the battery (I think), then travel to a 2nd destination and leave the other part of the mobile, and then travel to the 3rd location for the meeting. They did this because they didn't trust the technology to not let the powers that be spy on them. This was all in place long before the Snowden leaks.
So the terrorists are already wise to how technology can be used against them. The more the media and Government push the agenda of encryption being bad and banning it doesn't mean it will let the security forces/army/men in black monitor potential terrorists any easier. The terrorists will see the same shit we're seeing, and they will make a plan to tip toe around it. Meaning they're driven more underground, using clandestine methods of communication, meaning they're harder to track and pin down.
The terrorists go in to the shadows even more, while the general public are opened up to inspection against our permission. Imagine now a Tory government gets in to power on 9th June, and they decide over the 5 years to target those who speak out against May and her policies. Those people can be found under "terrorism" acts as it's such a loose term. Likewise, if a Labour government get in whats to stop them targetting those who hate immigrants coming in to the country and treat them as far-right terrorists using the same protocols?
TL;DR: The country's fucked and the only way to restore pride in the nation is to build a giant working homage to George Orwell's 1984, because terrorism.
So what exactly counts as a hate speech then? Because someone shouting about how Mexicans are rapists, or that a group of countries are a threat to the stability of one country just because of free movement of people, well I'd class that as hate speech material but I see that on the news all the time.
And what counts as sexually explicit? Last night while watching 5Star I saw adverts, one after the other, of very young girls dressed up in tights and lycra with an inch thick of make up on their face blowing kisses at people and dancing around like they're 20 years old in a hip hop video. I saw that on TV, as a trailer to a show that will be shown at 9pm in the UK. That's sexualising children - and that's just one example.
So, really, it's a bullshit rule of "do as we say, not as we do" and it's only applicable to the internet as it "deals" with "fake news" outlets. Because a media you pay money to can be trusted so much more than someone in their bedroom.
What a load of old bullshit.
The UK tested a range of cars, the only ones who were within the tolerance of emissions set out by the manufacturers were BMW. Land Rover were really bad, nearly 100 times as polluting as what they said the car would do.
The Peugeot 3008 was a big offender, much more polluting than the Range Rover. Doesn't surprise me, I'm stick with one of those hateful cars and it's a big bag of shite anyway.
"While I like to think that is sarcasm I am sure that there are people who actually feel that way and they are ruining it for the rest of us who just want to get on with our work/driving/leisure time.
PS. My dad could batter your dad."
I'm ruining it for no one.
P.S. My Dad can eat more Big Mac's than your Dad!
"Gonna be less time than that if the EU keep messing about and demanding obscene payoffs before they will 'negotiate' (they have already said they wont, its their way or nothing). For a political body promoting itself as a trade block they dont seem very good when it comes to negotiating."
Fuck off with that bullshit.
The UK can't cherry pick what it wants and not pay the bill. Get over it.
You know, when I see the Police doing mad stupid shit like this, it makes me wonder how on the ball they are when they're spying on everyone's communications?
Criminal: "You got any of that plastic stuff left over? Need it for a job tomorrow. It's a big one."
Copper: "Plastic stuff? A job tomorrow? Probably construction. Nothing to worry about."
----
Ordinary Joe: "Have you seen that big bomb in Aston mate? It's going to go off shortly?"
Copper: "TERRORIST! TERRORIST!!!!!"
WannaCrypt software was developed by the NSA and leaked (amongst other things) in the Vault 7 leak. Included in that was also software to make attacks look like they originated from another country.
So, with that information, could it still be the North Koreans? Or could it be someone who could/would benefit from some heightened tension in the Korean peninsular?
"I mean, would a car manufacturer fix a flaw that allowed an attacker access to your vehicle but ONLY if you bought the extended service deal? Despite the fact that the cost of fixing that flaw was (1) nil in real terms and (2) the unknown potential loss of paying extended support customers?"
Well Ford calculated that the cost of compensation to likely victims of a Ford Pinto crash would cost less than fitting plastic caps to the rear axle, which would stop it puncturing the fuel tank and stop it combusting in to a fireball with the occupants inside.
So really in answer to your question: The manufacturer really doesn't care about any flaw in a car, regardless how long you've had it. With the exception of Honda and Toyota, they'll recall cars even if they're 15 years old to fix damaged lightswitches or airbags.
"When the deal ended on April 14, 2015, it was decided CCS would not purchase government-wide support for a second year. Instead, individual government departments and agencies were told they were free to allocate budget and sign their own agreements with Redmond."
Still managed to find £7.5 million to refurbish a stately home for a multi-millionaire though, didn't they?
"When demand exceeds supply then the price rises."
When you sell off your social housing stock, but instead of building more homes you flitter away the money, then demand exceeds supply forcing people in to private rented accomodation, by which the landlords increase their rental prices because they know they're in demand.
"Really? So the UK dictated that a huge bill must be paid before any negotiation, and that negotiation is not up for negotiation unless the EU do exactly what we want and then we may possibly humour any additional thoughts?"
Do you ever walk in to the Savoy for afternoon tea, then go to leave without paying the bill?
"I'm sorry, I only ordered afternoon tea. The negotiation of price never happened, so therefore I don't have to pay".
@codejunky
You make some good points, well one or two, however your arguments are fundamentally wrong because you are essentially blaming everything on the Labour government. Which makes me think you're Grant Schapps.
I'm not sure where you were, but in 2008 we had a financial crisis. Well we didn't, the world had it. But Northern Rock, Lloyds, RBS had to be bailed out. All the money borrowed from the IMF etc went through to bail out those financial instituitons (to name a few). It went on a scrappage scheme to help keep the economy afloat. If it's Labour's fault that they didn't let these banks go under, I could maybe agree. But to blame Labour for borrowing loads of money without giving the reason I can't agree with.
Also your (obvious) distain for the EU is clouding your judgement. Juncker said - quite rightly - that UK can't just cherry pick the best bits and then leave without contributing. You can't tell your landlord or car provider that you don't want the flat/car anymore and that you refuse to contribute anything to it, even though you have agreed a rent or payment plan in advance of that which you're bound to. Like I said, which I notice you didn't pick up on, the border question. And you'll find that the issue the EU has is with the free movement of people, which the UK doesn't want. But the UK want a soft border with the Republic of Ireland. You can't have both. You have to be an almighty idiot to believe you can. Not just on the principle, but on the practice.
I'm sorry, but it's a 3rd world problem. We're one of the richest countries in the world, HOW can we not make sure every child has one or two meals (let alone warm) a day, and how can we not make sure the homeless have somewhere safe to sleep? Jesus even a disused car park with 8ft fences around it would be better than forcing these people to sleep in doorways.
Being fair doesn't mean nothing. It means what it means. It isn't fair, for example, someone who is terminally ill with cancer to have some dickhead make them stand up and walk 10 paces as a test to see if they can work when there are plenty of wankers in this country avoiding paying what the law states they owe.
It isn't fair that a bunch of old men who had the benefit of free education their whole lives should then turn round to my generation and say "ah sorry guys you need to pay for university now".
It isn't fair that those same wankers who sit there should cheer that benefits for the unemployed and disabled should be cut, when they take home £80,000 a year in wages on top of expenses that we can't fully check because they're redacted.
It isn't fair that the very very same wankers sit there saying "we need a raise of £10,000 per annum" refuse to give nurses even a 1% pay increase on their wages.
It's because of people like you, who believe fairness is something that can't be achieved, have let this happen. And regardless of my youth (and I lived under a Tory government once before, I remember John Major on his soap box, and the Tory Blair governments) I know what is right, and I refuse - like others - to accept the bullshit we are fed that we can't afford to help the people in this country.
But the minute someone in an oil rich country does something bad, oh no no no no plenty of money for dropping bombs and sending youngster in to kill innocent people over there. Plenty of fucking money for that!
"Unfortunately only the tories and UKIP accept the reality (brexit)"
What dimension are you in? A "no deal Brexit" is only a reality because May has done enough to piss everyone off that the rest of the EU aren't even considering working with a pig-headed old trout who has absolutely no idea what she's doing and has all the charisma of week old porridge. Yes we're going to get Brexit, everyone is over that now. What the people want is the best deal for us. But as with everything, in our every day lives, you can't just go to someone and say "Yeah we want A, B, C, and er yeah that's it really. No we're not giving you anything in return we demand A, B, C! What? You won't give it to us? Fine, we don't need you or A, B, C anyway!". That's what Brexit has been about so far.
For an example, the border question with the Republic of Ireland, how there won't be a hard border. OK, that's nice, but the Republic is a European country with free movement of people, and the UK won't allow free movement of people. But if you have a soft border or something like what's there now, well if you're from France you can just visit Ireland and walk across in to Northern Ireland and in to the UK. So if we can't have a free movement of people, but you don't want a hard border, I'm not sure how they can think that's acheiveable?
You haven't read the manifesto of any party, and that's obvious from your choice of words regarding Labour's idea for the country. It was The Daily Fail that started the whole "dragging us back to the 1970's" line, and why wouldn't they say that? Paul Dacre is very good friends with Frau May.
It comes down to simple enough terms, if people bothered to look for themselves. The country is in debt, and this country has spent 7 years in "austerity" in order to get out of the "deficit". We were all promised that would be over by 2015. But apparently that isn't the case, and we've been borrowing more.
I don't think anyone actually cares whether we borrow money or not. It's not like your household whereby if you run out of money you lose everything. That'll never happen. The country won't go broke because a few pound is borrowed. What people care about is where the money goes. Over the weekend we find out that the NHS made a funding request of about £5.5 million to make a deal with Microsoft in order to provide updates to the computers ran by the organisation. That was declined. Yet a funding request for £7.5 million was approved to rennovate some big grand house, owned by a multi-millionare. The example, I know, sounds like a basis for class war but I don't mean it to be. What I want to put across is £7 million spent on a house to be enjoyed by a few people isn't exactly a great way to spend money if £5 million is needed to secure the security of a system used by over 60 million people.
Really for many people like myself who weren't even an itch in our fathers scrotum in the 1970's, we don't know what it was like other than seeing mass union action and Thatcher running about saying she won't be turned. We can only deal with what we've seen, and for all of my working life I have worked in a country of austerity, by a government who really don't care about me. Their polices haven't benefitted me yet I seem to be giving them more and more money or leeway to do what they want. So of course, if another party says "No more austerity, we're going to nationalise everything and keep the money inside the country" then why wouldn't that be a better idea rather than privatising our mail service for pennies and getting a crap service in return (as one example)?
There's a lot of problems in this country, and we're a rich nation. We shouldn't be having 3rd world problems like homelessness and child poverty in a country that plays host to huge multi-trillion business deals every day. No one wants Russia-style communisim. We want fairness. The weak shouldn't suffer what they must, in order to sustain favourable conditions for people who have the majority of wealth.
"Err, what sort of performance would you expect if the Tories lose? Corbyn wants to drag us back to the 1970s, so can you imagine the sort of big-state approach he'll be having on IT? I can remember eating by candlelight because the government was at odds with the employees of the state-owned electricity industry. "Party lines" installed by the sluggish, expensive, incompetent GPO. A state owned motor industry that signed its own death warrant through endless strikes and poor quality. Etc etc."
In short: a much better life than what I've got under the Tories.
Your arguments regarding Corbyn are completely wrong and misplaced. The idea of privatising the rails, energy etc was so that the infrastructures and rolling stock could be upgraded and improved. Instead the only thing to improve on the rails is the increase in ticket prices and over crowding. Likewise with energy, increases of energy bills yet no movement or improvement on the whole.
All the money paid to privatised companies wouldn't leave the UK then, it'd stay in the country. The Rail/Energy would become not-for-profit, meaning any profits were put back in to the industries. What's the problem in that?
Furthermore, with your inaccuracies in your question lead me to believe you've never read anything other than The Daily Fail et al about him and his policies. Bet you still think he ran a photographer over, don't you?
