Sign In

TM2YC

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
25-Apr-2013
Last activity
26-Apr-2018
Posts
4210

Post History

Post
#1195218
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

TM2YC said:

In recent weeks, I keep hearing politicians and journalists saying this online data protection issue is difficult, or impossible to solve. Is forcing online companies by law to give people a genuine opt out of 3rd party data sharing really that difficult?

I’m sure if Facebook (using them as an example) surveyed all of their users and asked “would you like us to share and/or sell your private data to 3rd parties?” 0% would say yes. Yet 100% of their users have agreed to let Facebook do exactly that because it’s not possible to opt out of it and still use their service.

Simply make it illegal for these companies to share data without the express permission of the user and make it illegal to make that permission conditional on continued use of said service. I don’t know about other countries but in the UK data-protection for customers in the real-world is serious sh*t that companies can get in trouble for. So why is it okay for companies in the online world to act like it’s the wild west with people’s privacy?

It doesn’t even need to be on an international basis (it would be better if it was through), individual countries can legislate on this and the companies will obey the laws in those countries like they do across real-world borders because they want to do business in those countries.

Totally agree. The sad fact of the world is that you sometimes have to save people from themselves. Hell I’m all about privacy and yet I have a Facebook page.

But that’s my point. You didn’t have the option to save yourself. It was use the service and get screwed, or not use the service. Things like facebook, twitter, youtube and google are facts of life now. Asking people to choose between being able to use them at all and a vague possibility that their data might be used by a “trusted” 3rd party, is not a fair choice.

Post
#1195063
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Handman said:

^What I wanted to hear. It would be interesting to see how it would affect their business strategy, there is big bucks in sharing this data. In fact, I think that’s where most of these social media companies value lie.

The effect on their bottom line is not important. Many other highly profitable ways of making money are already illegal for good reasons. This should be one of them.

Post
#1195000
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

In recent weeks, I keep hearing politicians and journalists saying this online data protection issue is difficult, or impossible to solve. Is forcing online companies by law to give people a genuine opt out of 3rd party data sharing really that difficult?

I’m sure if Facebook (using them as an example) surveyed all of their users and asked “would you like us to share and/or sell your private data to 3rd parties?” 0% would say yes. Yet 100% of their users have agreed to let Facebook do exactly that because it’s not possible to opt out of it and still use their service.

Simply make it illegal for these companies to share data without the express permission of the user and make it illegal to make that permission conditional on continued use of said service. I don’t know about other countries but in the UK data-protection for customers in the real-world is serious sh*t that companies can get in trouble for. So why is it okay for companies in the online world to act like it’s the wild west with people’s privacy?

It doesn’t even need to be on an international basis (it would be better if it was through), individual countries can legislate on this and the companies will obey the laws in those countries like they do across real-world borders because they want to do business in those countries.

Post
#1194627
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

oojason said:

if adults have to be slightly inconvenienced in proving their age to buy one in a shop, then so be it - the extra ten seconds to pull out their driving licence or other ID and show it to the shop assistant is quite a small price to pay, no?^

^ - which is something we’ve already been doing for years.

Agreed but to clarify for non UK people reading, when you say “have” to prove “their age to buy one in a shop” you don’t mean, “cannot buy without an ID” in the UK. Once you get to a certain age where the retailer can see you are clearly over the relevant age, they won’t waste their time, or your time asking for ID because of common sense.

Post
#1194608
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

You have guns, people use them for bad things, you severely restrict guns, people start using knives for bad, you severely restrict knives, people start using rocks or tire irons for bad… where does that end?

With the knives. Pretty obvious when you stop to think about it.

The sale of Knives are already heavily restricted in the UK and have been since like forever… in the real world. You work in a shop and you sell an age restricted item to somebody underage, you will probably lose your job and/or end up in court. The new problem is in part caused because underage people are able to bypass those laws intended to protect them and buy them online. This new law will close this legal loophole and make dangerous weapons very hard to access again.

Post
#1194355
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tyrphanax said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/07/london-stabbings-300-extra-police-deployed-streets-tackle-spike/

Sounds like it’s all under control over there in the nanny state.

“You could be a mum or dad, big brother, big sister, a friend, a girlfriend, a boyfriend who knows somebody carrying a knife, leaving their home with a knife, involved in criminality - there’s no honour in keeping that a secret,” he said.

“You should try and prevent that person carrying a knife, leaving home with a knife.”

Insanity. “Just disarm yourselves, populace, and don’t worry: the government will keep you safe.”

Addendum:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/18/plans-to-make-delivery-of-knives-sold-online-to-private-addresses-illegal-knife-crime

Knives bought online will in future have to be collected in person, with retailers responsible for checking that all buyers are 18 or older. New powers are also proposed for the police to seize banned weapons such as zombie knives, knuckledusters and throwing stars if they are found in someone’s home, and to arrest those involved.

I can’t even wrap my head around the fact that we actually live in a world where things like this are going on. I carry a pocket knife every day because it’s useful in many situations at home or out and about or at work or really anywhere. It’s crazy to think that could be considered a criminal act in some places.

I can’t even wrap my head around the fact that you can’t even wrap your head around that fact.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

If Swiss Army type knives are allowed, I don’t see what the problem is. I can’t think of a single good reason to be carrying a knife besides those listed. Honestly I’m struggling to find what’s wrong with anything in that law.

The main problem I see is that there is no clear and universal definition for a “disguised knife.” What about a switch-blade? I own one of those.

You carry a switch-blade? What for? Are you auditioning for West Side Story?

oojason said:

Tradesmen (or women) - or anyone with a good reason to be carrying a knife or blade (butcher, chef, carpenter, fisherman, even an IT engineer - got to cut those cables! etc) will be okay to go about their usual business.

Some overzealous copper may make things a little awkward - though common sense usually prevails on these things - especially when a more experienced officer or Sgt becomes involved.

Yeah the Police have got common sense and better things to do.

Post
#1187854
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

And another fun day in Trump’s America.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/miguel-perez-jr-army-veteran-with-ptsd-who-served-two-tours-in-afghanistan-deported-to-mexico.html

That’s insane. Even if one strongly believed that an illegal immigrant is illegal and that’s that, if the government wanted to deport him, it shouldn’t have allowed him to serve the government in the first place.

Mrebo said:

Trump Administration kicks out 60 Russian “diplomats.”

One diplomat for every minute of Stormy’s interview. Take that fake media!

Post
#1187330
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

and speaking Fukushima, I think fracking(if it causes earthquakes) and nuclear power plants are not a good combination.

^ Lots of things are bad combinations but nobody is suggesting those two will be combined.

I’m in favour of Nuclear as a stop-gap at least but not Fracking. If Fracking companies are prepared to pay for any and all damages incurred then fine

How do you pay for loss of life in earthquakes caused by fracking?

I don’t think we are talking that level of Earthquake. The kind that could do damage to the foundations of your property, or pollute your water supply, nothing on a Hollywood blockbuster scale.

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

but (in the UK at least) they have arranged it so they are immune from prosecution. Drill under my house. House falls in hole. Tough sh*t.

If that is so, that is absolutely ridiculous.

Ridiculous but true. I found a post from an Agricultural Solicitor discussing the relevant UK laws:

https://www.michelmores.com/news-views/news/fracking-landowner-rights

The key points:

The general rule at common law, with regards to land ownership, is that the person who owns the surface of a piece of land also owns the strata that exists beneath the surface. This is unless the rights have been sold separately from the land. However, by virtue of the Petroleum Act 1998, petroleum rights, including deposits of natural gas belong to the Crown. Operators are required to obtain a licence from the Government to search for and produce oil and gas. This is in contrast to the US, where landowners own sub-surface mineral rights.

prior to the enactment of the Infrastructure Act 2015, the law required a fracking operator to acquire the landowner’s permission to drill under their land and was required to compensate the landowner accordingly. This mirrored the position in the US.

Section 43 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 provides that there is now a right to drill for oil or gas at a depth of at least 300m below the surface. This effectively removes the need to gain consent from the landowner to access land at a depth below 300 metres.

As it stands there is no automatic right to compensation for an individual landowner.

So in short they rewrote the law in 2015 to allow fracking under your land without your permission and without needing to compensate you. As I said already, it doesn’t seem like the attitude of an industry that has faith in the safety of what it does.

As I understand it, in the US they would be required to gain your permission and to compensate you for access. Which as I also said above would be fine. If I’m financially compensated for drilling under my house then I’m fine with it.

Post
#1187294
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

and speaking Fukushima, I think fracking(if it causes earthquakes) and nuclear power plants are not a good combination.

^ Lots of things are bad combinations but nobody is suggesting those two will be combined.

I’m in favour of Nuclear as a stop-gap at least but not Fracking. If Fracking companies are prepared to pay for any and all damages incurred then fine but (in the UK at least) they have arranged it so they are immune from prosecution. Drill under my house. House falls in hole. Tough sh*t. Not the behaviour of a safe industry that is confident in it’s technology IMO.

Latest report from Channel4 News, now spinning the CA scandal off into illegal shenanigans in the Brexit campaign involving the Prime Minister’s Political Secretary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0bFAgTGwk

A Brexit campaigner has told Channel 4 News that Vote Leave cheated in the 2016 referendum by over-spending. But the prime minister’s political secretary says the allegations are “factually incorrect and misleading”, and outs the accuser as gay.

Post
#1185517
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Tonight’s Channel4 report on Cambridge Analytica:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-9iciNF1A

Alleging breaking of financing rules by the Trump campaign because…

  • Steve Bannon on board of CA
  • Steve Bannon Trump Campaign strategist
  • CA claim to have masterminded the Trump campaign
  • CA financed by billionaires the Mercers (and on board of CA)
  • Trump campaign financed by billionaires the Mercers
  • Pro-Trump/Anti-Clinton adds made by CA, funded by Mercers outside of declared spending via “make america number 1” Super-PAC

…a Super-Pac which claimed they are “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee”. Sounds reasonable.

Alexander Nix has now been suspended. Facebook being investigated by the FTC. UK’s Information Commissioner applying for warrant to search London offices of CA.

(Popcorn eating meme not included)

Post
#1184933
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Make your own pizza, it’s surprisingly quick and easy.

More reporting by Channel4 tonight on the ‘Cambridge Analytica’/Facebook story. Undercover filming of CEO Alexander Nix admitting to all sorts of shady stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbeOCKZFfQ

Facebook drops $35 billion in value as a result.

More undercover footage promised tomorrow about the Trump campaign.

Post
#1184156
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

This report was on Channel4 news today about Facebook data, the US election, Steve Bannon etc. Interesting viewing:

Cambridge Analytica: Whistleblower reveals data grab of 50 million Facebook profiles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb6-xz-geH4

The company, Cambridge Analytica, was suspended from Facebook on Friday.

Both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica deny any wrongdoing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43444791

Post
#1180305
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

Oh well, you learn a new thing every day! I’ve managed to watch Doctor Who all my life and not be aware they were ever called seasons but I never got into any of the fan stuff like magazines that might have mentioned it. It would have helped if any of my DVDs had mentioned it on the covers instead of just the transmission years. I just assumed it should be “series” because all other UK older TV shows are. e.g. Blake’s 7, Space 1999, Red Dwarf etc.

Post
#1180231
Topic
Doctor Who
Time

The UK convention had always been to call TV shows Series but it’s become more and more common to sometimes refer to newer shows as Seasons, in the US style. I don’t think I’d ever heard of a UK TV show being called a Season until the big HBO type shows have become globally popular in the last couple of decades and the US term started to become interchangeable. Classic Doctor Who being an older show, was and is a series. If fan convention has been to rename the classic show as Seasons for simplicity (due to the confusing restart of the numbering on the new show) then fair enough… but it’s still wrong.