Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are betting on the Trump exit markets be careful to che

13

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    kyf_100 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...

    I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
    I've seen a serious academic paper suggesting that the fall in teenage pregnancy is partly due to the rise of social media - teenagers were said to be too busy on SnapChat to get round to having sex. My impression is that most young people combine the two quite comfortably, though.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Conservatives are right wing. Labour, Lib Dems, and SNP are left wing. That's a blinding glimpse of the obvious.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2018
    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    Spending most of your time staring at a smartphone is not a good way to live, and just because the majority of people might be doing it doesn't make it okay. Someone from the government should have said this a few years ago, but of course they don't want to lose votes by "insulting" people.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,405
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone who was using a computer in the 1980s as a child is a digital native in my opinion.

    I've still got my ZX Spectrum, and the cassette tapes with the bootleg copies of games.

    I went to University in 1985. We had 2 hours a week faffing about with computers in the first term and then I didn't use one again for the rest of the course. And this was an engineering degree.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    AndyJS said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    Spending most of your time staring at a smartphone is not a good way to live, and just because the majority of people might be doing it doesn't make it okay. Someone from the government should have said this a few years ago, but of course they don't want to lose votes by "insulting" people.
    Texting pictures of your private parts to friends is considered normal, whereas complimenting someone on their appearance is sexual harrassment.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kyf_100 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...

    I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
    I've seen a serious academic paper suggesting that the fall in teenage pregnancy is partly due to the rise of social media - teenagers were said to be too busy on SnapChat to get round to having sex. My impression is that most young people combine the two quite comfortably, though.
    Indeed - I believe the theory is more that there's less chance for, shall we say, spontaneous moments, since they don't need to meet up all the time where something might then happen. But it doesn't sound very plausible.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
    I hope for the sake of the work you do, he stays. From the little I heard, it sounds worthwhile.

    Mind you, I am not so sure about his work at Education. His changes seem to have pissed off a lot of young teachers. My daughter really wants to be a teacher - and has done tutoring/classroom assistant work while a student etc - but has had so many first-hand reports about how bloody awful it is from those who have gone into it via Teach First or who have been in it and have left that she has been completely put off. She is now looking to do something else in the educational field. But what a waste, really.

    BTW if anyone has any bright ideas for what a would-be teacher might do, let me know.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...

    I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
    I've seen a serious academic paper suggesting that the fall in teenage pregnancy is partly due to the rise of social media - teenagers were said to be too busy on SnapChat to get round to having sex. My impression is that most young people combine the two quite comfortably, though.
    Indeed - I believe the theory is more that there's less chance for, shall we say, spontaneous moments, since they don't need to meet up all the time where something might then happen. But it doesn't sound very plausible.
    I heard similar arguments that smartphone use is the reason there is less low level crime (vandalism etc), because young people are glued to their smartphones, and lower alcohol consumption (because the young are far more body conscious and spend more time in the gym).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited January 2018

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
    Worried about a Tory minister? And you call yourself a proper lefty? :)

    In all seriousness Gove strikes me as someone useful for a government, if properly managed and directed - he has ideas, and the drive to push for them, for better and for worse (and that's where his superiors need to come in, and we need to hope they know how to make best use of him).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Gove's policy sounds very pleasantly bucolic to me.

    I've been reading up on it today and he's pledged to maintain current subsidies to 2022 and then phase into the new system by 2024.

    Agriculture cuts across many policy areas - environmental, food, trade, rural access and planning- and affects aesthetically how much of how the UK looks visually, and how people feel about it. Also, land planning and investment can take place over very long time horizons (hard infrastructure is needed like drainage, tractors, sheds and plant equipment, and things need time to breed, grow and mature; it's not all annual crops.

    Given that, and the complexity of putting in place a totally new system, in a world where current CAP subsidies can represent up to 55% of farm income, a decent transition period is probably necessary.

    That said, I expect he'll want to show some wins on it (politically) by GE2022. I imagine by some headline grabbing caps or scrapping of payment systems for the largest/richest landowners.

    It's the other way around. Gove proposed cutting the absurd subsidies for the richest, and has been nobbled. 2022 is long grass, and it may not happen even then. The first decent thing I have seen come out of Brexit and Tory vested interest has seen it sunk.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...

    I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
    I've seen a serious academic paper suggesting that the fall in teenage pregnancy is partly due to the rise of social media - teenagers were said to be too busy on SnapChat to get round to having sex. My impression is that most young people combine the two quite comfortably, though.
    Indeed - I believe the theory is more that there's less chance for, shall we say, spontaneous moments, since they don't need to meet up all the time where something might then happen. But it doesn't sound very plausible.
    I heard similar arguments that smartphone use is the reason there is less low level crime (vandalism etc), because young people are glued to their smartphones, and lower alcohol consumption (because the young are far more body conscious and spend more time in the gym).
    I don't know how they could afford to get drunk, quite frankly. Loads manage it of course, but still.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617

    HYUFD said:

    murali_s said:

    Mortimer said:

    Jonathan said:

    Tory party faces a choice. Does it continue to modernise in pursuit if a broad, one nation pragmatic version of itself. Or does it prefer to become a more focused right wing ideological group.

    Can't do both.

    The Tory party since Brexit is more traditionally one nation and less ideologically right wing than under Cameron/Osborne.

    It just happens to disagree with you about being in Europe.
    Wrong, wrong, wrong! Look at the demographics my young Tory friend!

    It's all heading in the wrong direction for the Tories...
    It is the middle aged 35 to 65 year olds the Tories need for a majority, the old always vote Tory and the young always vote Labour unless one wins a landslide
    I agree the Tories should focus on the 30 and 40-somethings, rather than overly obsess about millennials.
    @Casino_Royale Saw this is the previous thread and wanted to reply. Many of those who are in their 30s are millennials. Millennials are those born after 1981, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be an agreement among demographers on the specific cut off date.
    I should probably say those born after 1992 then. 25 or under.

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.
    Roughly speaking, anyone born after the election of Reagan/Thatcher is a millennial. That was clearly a societal milestone and being the years Reagan was elected/inaugurated probably explains the usual stated cutoffs of 1980/81.
  • IanB2 said:

    Gove's policy sounds very pleasantly bucolic to me.

    I've been reading up on it today and he's pledged to maintain current subsidies to 2022 and then phase into the new system by 2024.

    Agriculture cuts across many policy areas - environmental, food, trade, rural access and planning- and affects aesthetically how much of how the UK looks visually, and how people feel about it. Also, land planning and investment can take place over very long time horizons (hard infrastructure is needed like drainage, tractors, sheds and plant equipment, and things need time to breed, grow and mature; it's not all annual crops.

    Given that, and the complexity of putting in place a totally new system, in a world where current CAP subsidies can represent up to 55% of farm income, a decent transition period is probably necessary.

    That said, I expect he'll want to show some wins on it (politically) by GE2022. I imagine by some headline grabbing caps or scrapping of payment systems for the largest/richest landowners.

    It's the other way around. Gove proposed cutting the absurd subsidies for the richest, and has been nobbled. 2022 is long grass, and it may not happen even then. The first decent thing I have seen come out of Brexit and Tory vested interest has seen it sunk.
    Gove has said he will maintain the current subsidies through any transition period. That takes him up to 2022 as the first year he can introduce a replacement scheme. That seems absolutely right to me and is certainly not kicking it into the long grass. When the environmental groups are giving a welcome to his plans and the only people trying to undermine what he is doing are his political opponents then I would suggest it is you who are in the rong place here.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone who was using a computer in the 1980s as a child is a digital native in my opinion.

    Absolutely but a different kind of digital native to someone who is using a computer as a child in the 2010s.

    My parents had to worry about nothing as I typed in computer games from book program listings. Modern parent shave to watch their sprogs like hawks incase they end up in a mire of horrific YouTube videos or the like.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    edited January 2018
    kle4 said:



    Worried about a Tory minister? And you call yourself a proper lefty? :)

    In all seriousness Gove strikes me as someone useful for a government, if properly managed and directed - he has ideas, and the drive to push for them, for better and for worse (and that's where his superiors need to come in, and we need to hope they know how to make best use of him).

    In my day job I'm not a lefty at all -have been quietly trying to get an auction going between the parties on who will do most for farm animals. I think IanB2 is too harsh - it's possible that the initiative might go into the long grass but although I'd love to see intensive farming disappear tomorrow, I think a 4-year transition period is only fair to avoid really screwing the farming sector. What matters is a longer term, not the transition - as for Brexit itself
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    AndyJS said:

    Anyone who was using a computer in the 1980s as a child is a digital native in my opinion.

    I've still got my ZX Spectrum, and the cassette tapes with the bootleg copies of games.

    I went to University in 1985. We had 2 hours a week faffing about with computers in the first term and then I didn't use one again for the rest of the course. And this was an engineering degree.
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1835143999/zx-spectrum-next

    Clock cycle accurate hardware recreation of the Speccy, all your old games will load over tape.

    Saw this kickstarter 3 months after I chucked out all my old Spectrum games (500 or so - nothing pirated). So sad.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.

    Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
    Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
    But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
    If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.

    The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.

    I include myself in that.

    But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
    Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
    That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
    Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
    Nothing at all to do with the relentless drive to federalism, of course!
    Off topic: Did you feel the earthquake last night?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:



    Worried about a Tory minister? And you call yourself a proper lefty? :)

    In all seriousness Gove strikes me as someone useful for a government, if properly managed and directed - he has ideas, and the drive to push for them, for better and for worse (and that's where his superiors need to come in, and we need to hope they know how to make best use of him).

    In my day job I'm not a lefty at all -have been quietly trying to get an auction going between the parties on who will do most for farm animals. I think IanB2 is too harsh - it's possible that the initiative might go into the long grass but although I'd love to see intensive farming disappear tomorrow, I think a 4-year transition period is only fair to avoid really screwing the farming sector. What matters is a longer term, not the transition - as for Brexit itself
    I was only kidding - if only more of us could separate out the politics.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    I've often wondered, if we were to bring back the ancient Athenian tradition of ostracism, who would be the first figure in public life to be banished for ten years?

    I think it would be a close call between Blair and Farage.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Foxy said:

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.

    Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
    I wouldn't blame it on New Labour (who were very popular in their first term), so much as the triumph of the Eurosceptics over Majorism. This made Anti-Europeanism mainstream, by putting it at the heart of a previously pro - European Tory party. At that time Haugue favoured quite eurosceptic rhetoric.
    Major had a europhile policy at the heart of his economic strategy which dramatically collapsed within months of his relection with significant economic fallout for many hundreds of thousands of families.

    I'd argue that did far more for euroscepticism than the actions of his backbenchers.
    Tories are loyalists at heart, so Euroscepticism remained fringe until Major fell.

    Though actually if you look back further along the timeline the peak unpopularity of the EEC was in late 70's and early Eighties, becoming popular again in the mid Eighties under Maggie.
  • What a goal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).


    Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.

    This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
    I'll never the look on the face of my 21 year old colleague when a few years ago when I told her what my first mobile phone contract included.

    In 1995 For £40 a month I got 200 inclusive minutes only to people on the same network (Cellnet) no inclusive texts, no data, it was 12p per text, and if you wanted to call people on another network it was 40p a minute, which wasn't part of your inclusive minutes.

    Tracking how much you had used to was a challenge.

    Bill shock was fun.
    I remember that. I was violated and cleaned out by Orange on an almost monthly basis.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
    Very interesting and fair comment- thanks.

    Did you like him in person?
  • tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).


    Up until the age of thirteen, I'd never even seen a mobile phone, still less used one - I remember walking for a long time, and queuing, for public payphones with bags of 10p and 20p coins in my pocket - and had never even seen the Internet.

    This is horse and cart stuff to real millennials.
    I'll never the look on the face of my 21 year old colleague when a few years ago when I told her what my first mobile phone contract included.

    In 1995 For £40 a month I got 200 inclusive minutes only to people on the same network (Cellnet) no inclusive texts, no data, it was 12p per text, and if you wanted to call people on another network it was 40p a minute, which wasn't part of your inclusive minutes.

    Tracking how much you had used to was a challenge.

    Bill shock was fun.
    I remember that. I was violated and cleaned out by Orange on an almost monthly basis.
    Same here with Cellnet, after rent, I think mobile phone bills were the biggest drain on my funds.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    kyf_100 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    I am incredibly thankful that I grew up in a world without social media, camera phones and such. This thankfully means that my youthful indescretions (and there were many) are a distant and fading memory rather than etched forever on someone's insta/facebook account, that I don't feel the need to broadcast every waking second of my life...

    I recall gigs and nights out as places where you went to drink, dance and maybe get high, the only times I've been in places like that as a "proper" adult all I see is groups of teenagers making the same ridiculous poses or watching the gig through their phones rather than getting into the music.
    I've seen a serious academic paper suggesting that the fall in teenage pregnancy is partly due to the rise of social media - teenagers were said to be too busy on SnapChat to get round to having sex. My impression is that most young people combine the two quite comfortably, though.
    That extra sex in the pre social media era must have passed me by then.

    Facebook actually makes it a bit easier to hook up and meet with people you've met.
  • kyf_100 said:

    I've often wondered, if we were to bring back the ancient Athenian tradition of ostracism, who would be the first figure in public life to be banished for ten years?

    I think it would be a close call between Blair and Farage.
    I agree. I think Blair may edge it slightly among the public (I’m saying this as someone who dislikes Farage more than I dislike Blair).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    edited January 2018
    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.

    Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
    Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
    But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
    If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.

    The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.

    I include myself in that.

    But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
    Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
    That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
    Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
    Nothing at all to do with the relentless drive to federalism, of course!
    Off topic: Did you feel the earthquake last night?
    Can you send those sort of messages in private, please.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    tlg86 said:

    welshowl said:

    kle4 said:

    tlg86 said:

    On Millennials, I wonder where the change is. I'm 31 and I reckon I was in the last academic year to not have Facebook at school (one friend of mine did actually have his own webiste which we used to post stuff on, he was a visionary!).

    I know a couple of guys born in 95/96 and they live there lives on social media in a way that seems totally alien to me (albeit, posting on PB would seem alien to most people!).

    It is amazing to consider the change. Not to start a four yorkshireman sketch, but I'm also 31, and my primary school had only one computer in it, which we never used once. I remember completing a homework assignment in secondary school by going over to my father's place and using a laptop for the first time, and that was pretty fancy. I'm sure there were kids who had houses with more advanced stuff, but I recall trying to share an emulator and pokemon ROM files with people on floppy discs and several people couldn't figure out such an easy transfer. Certainly by the time I got to university it seemed normal for people to be on Facebook, but even so.

    I think it is impossible not to marvel at the pace of change of phones and computers since one grew up and not feel more associated with the elder generation's thinking, as it certainly makes us sound old!
    I can remember having black and white TV! (Sad face)
    My dad kept an old black and white TV for upstairs. I can remember watching the 1993 FA Cup Final Replay on it (my mum was watching something on the "proper" TV).

    I suspect my upbringing was unusual for my generation. We used to spend school holidays in my grandfather's house near Bolsover which was built in the 1950s and barely touched since. Hot water came courtesy of the Rayburn in the kitchen.
    The 1993 FA CUP replay. I was there the programme is worth loads (in modern programme terms) as it's considered rare. I sold one a few years ago for £150 and still have one in my massive Owls collection. Still pains me that we lost though Chris Woods error.
  • What a goal.

    Again.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Mortimer said:

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.

    Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
    Or perhaps, that the EU is really disliked by a significant group of Britons. And became more disliked when plonkers started talking about giving up Sterling....
    But why did people turn against the EU and reelect said plonkers? It seems counter-intuitive and worthy of analysis.
    If you were able to put aside confirmation and cognitive dissonance William, absolutely.

    The answer is obvious: the British turned against the EU when it moved from common economic market to full political and economic federal union.

    I include myself in that.

    But you either can't or won't understand that, let alone agree with it, so let's not waste each other's time.
    Why is there an inflection point coinciding with the election of Blair then? We had the same approval rating as Germany at that point, five years after the Maastricht treaty.
    That's not an inflection point. It's half way down that downward trend from 1990-2000.
    Ok, but the trend prior to that was the same in Spain and Germany but then we diverged. I think the answer has to be what Foxy proposed: Hague made hardcore Euroscepticism mainstream and undermined the post-1975 consensus.
    Nothing at all to do with the relentless drive to federalism, of course!
    Off topic: Did you feel the earthquake last night?
    Can you send those sort of messages in private, please.
    The earth didn't move for me.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/948684376249962496
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
    Very interesting and fair comment- thanks.

    Did you like him in person?
    Thanks! I've known him to nod to for a long time, but have only had two direct interactions - the lunch today and half an hour in his office with a couple of colleagues from the animal welfare scene.

    I think the word that springs to mind (and he'd probably personally prefer) is "respect" rather than "like" - he is a cerebral politician and not cuddly, but he's got a fast, clear mind, and, importantly in my view, he actually wants to do something positive with his various Cabinet jobs. Some politicians (I won't say who in case they end up being shuffled to Defra!) give the impression that they're more interested in "being" someone than doing anything in particular. By contrast, if you appointed Gove as Ambassador to Outer Mongolia, I'd expect some ineresting policy proposals on Mongolia to follow within months.

    Professionally, I don't really mind whether politicians are sweet-natured and/or ideologically akin to my way of thinking. I mainly care what they actually say and do. Gove has so far been proactive and constructive in an area where sleepy nonchalance has ruled too long.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    kyf_100 said:

    I've often wondered, if we were to bring back the ancient Athenian tradition of ostracism, who would be the first figure in public life to be banished for ten years?

    I think it would be a close call between Blair and Farage.
    I agree. I think Blair may edge it slightly among the public (I’m saying this as someone who dislikes Farage more than I dislike Blair).
    Blair.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,265
    kle4 said:



    I was only kidding - if only more of us could separate out the politics.

    Yes, I know, sorry - for job reasons I have to stress it at every opportunity.
  • Scott_P said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/948684376249962496
    Cheers, I see SPECTRE is mentioned.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    edited January 2018
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

    Millennials (also known as Generation Y)

    I think millennials and Gen Y are considered to be the same thing. Gen Y is just another word for millennial.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Foxy said:

    I'm 35. I don't consider myself a millennial, even though I turned an adult in the year 2000 so qualify, because the attitudes of me and my friends who were born in the early 1980s are very different to those born in the mid-late 1990s.

    Do you think coming of political age as a Conservative during 'peak Blair' coloured your view of the EU? It's interesting that there was a significant drop in support for the EU in the UK during Blair's first term, almost as if it became a proxy for dissatisfaction with New Labour.

    https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/846356496254484481
    I wouldn't blame it on New Labour (who were very popular in their first term), so much as the triumph of the Eurosceptics over Majorism. This made Anti-Europeanism mainstream, by putting it at the heart of a previously pro - European Tory party. At that time Haugue favoured quite eurosceptic rhetoric.
    Major had a europhile policy at the heart of his economic strategy which dramatically collapsed within months of his relection with significant economic fallout for many hundreds of thousands of families.

    I'd argue that did far more for euroscepticism than the actions of his backbenchers.
    Tories are loyalists at heart, so Euroscepticism remained fringe until Major fell.

    Though actually if you look back further along the timeline the peak unpopularity of the EEC was in late 70's and early Eighties, becoming popular again in the mid Eighties under Maggie.
    I think that it was always more logical that the Conservatives should be anti-EU and Labour pro-EU, than the reverse. Somehow, each party ended up on the wrong side of the argument in the Seventies.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Scott_P said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/948684376249962496
    Cheers, I see SPECTRE is mentioned.
    I won't worry until I see SMERSH.

    Or my eyes start weeping blood.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768
    edited January 2018

    He is a cerebral politician and not cuddly, but he's got a fast, clear mind, and, importantly in my view, he actually wants to do something positive with his various Cabinet jobs. Some politicians (I won't say who in case they end up being shuffled to Defra!) give the impression that they're more interested in "being" someone than doing anything in particular. By contrast, if you appointed Gove as Ambassador to Outer Mongolia, I'd expect some ineresting policy proposals on Mongolia to follow within months.

    Never having met him but having worked under him in effect, I would agree with all of that with two caveats (1) he doesn't have great judgement so while he has many ideas he doesn't always distinguish between good ones and dud ones and (2) he's not a particularly good administrator so even when he has good ideas they are often poorly implemented. Those are what I would advise you to keep a sharp eye out for. We didn't, as a profession, and it has cost us dearly.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,038

    Just seen NickPalmer on BBC News

    Yes, commenting on Gove's speech. As usual with the media, they asked me 20 or so different quesitons plus the same questions in different ways, and then picked the most negative sound-bite. I'd said earlier that I thought Gove had the potential to be the best Secretary of State at Defra for many years and his initiatives were excellent, but they had me warhning thatg Britain couldn't win a race to the bottom in standards (in the context of not letting in substandard products in trade deals). But they had an enthusiastic farmer so probably felt that two comments saying it was a great speech would unbalance the report.

    I had lunch with Gove (plus a dozen others) afterwards. We're nervous that he'll be reshuffled and his successor might be less keen, but we'll see.
    Very interesting and fair comment- thanks.

    Did you like him in person?
    Thanks! I've known him to nod to for a long time, but have only had two direct interactions - the lunch today and half an hour in his office with a couple of colleagues from the animal welfare scene.

    I think the word that springs to mind (and he'd probably personally prefer) is "respect" rather than "like" - he is a cerebral politician and not cuddly, but he's got a fast, clear mind, and, importantly in my view, he actually wants to do something positive with his various Cabinet jobs. Some politicians (I won't say who in case they end up being shuffled to Defra!) give the impression that they're more interested in "being" someone than doing anything in particular. By contrast, if you appointed Gove as Ambassador to Outer Mongolia, I'd expect some ineresting policy proposals on Mongolia to follow within months.

    Professionally, I don't really mind whether politicians are sweet-natured and/or ideologically akin to my way of thinking. I mainly care what they actually say and do. Gove has so far been proactive and constructive in an area where sleepy nonchalance has ruled too long.
    Very interesting, thanks.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    I agree - dates feel very arbitrary.
    I think there is a difference between those who remember life before the internet became a widely used thing, who made it to adulthood without social media etc.

    Another shift I reckon is low cost air travel - where probably a very high proportion of British people only started being able to easily afford overseas holidays once they came in.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

    Millennials (also known as Generation Y)

    I think millennials and Gen Y are considered to be the same thing. Gen Y is just another word for millennial.
    I would make a distinction, but it is all a bit arbitrary!

    I was born at the tail end of the Baby boomers, but came of age in the Seventies punk era, and early eighties recession, which are classic Gen X. Perhaps I am hybrid. Gen Y is the generation between the tectonic cultural plate shifts of Seventies and Eighties, and the digital era.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Pulpstar said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I've often wondered, if we were to bring back the ancient Athenian tradition of ostracism, who would be the first figure in public life to be banished for ten years?

    I think it would be a close call between Blair and Farage.
    I agree. I think Blair may edge it slightly among the public (I’m saying this as someone who dislikes Farage more than I dislike Blair).
    Blair.
    Agreed. Farage is way more annoying.

    But, Tony Blair broke the collective hearts of a generation. The man who had everything; looks, charm, the fair winds of economic prosperity, a compliant party, and an enormous majority. Almost anything seemed possible.

    We never imagined that what was possible was a capricious and ridiculous war.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,768

    Scott_P said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/nicoleperlroth/status/948684376249962496
    Cheers, I see SPECTRE is mentioned.
    I won't worry until I see SMERSH.

    Or my eyes start weeping blood.
    Is that your Quantum of Solace? Or do you think this story might be from Russia, with love?
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Cheers.

    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    Just catching up on tonight's Man from Uncle.

    Classic TV but incredibly sexist 53 years on
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900


    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle


    I thought it was all going to be fixed in software, at a smallish performance cost.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Cheers.

    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle
    If it is not just hype, then there is going to be big trouble for tech companies.

    Anyone have a list of safe devices?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Since you probably don't want a technical explanation (and I can recommend ARSTechnica's story below for that), I'll simplify it.

    It's all Gordon Moore's fault. ;)

    Seriously. Moore's law was originally an observation, but it became a self-fulfilling rule that had to be met. There are two main ways of improving processor speed: process improvements (e.g. by making the chip's transistors smaller), and architecture improvements (e.g. improving the design).

    The problems is that the process improvements are eye-wateringly expensive. New fab plants to make chips cost billions, and the R&D just to bring a new process to market takes years and more billions. As an example, chips made on a latest-process 10nm node had an initial yield of 10%, meaning that 90% of all chips made were useless. This somewhat increases cost.

    Therefore it makes sense to concentrate on architecture. The problem is the easiest ways of getting massive improvements, such as caches and pipelining, were all done thirty years ago. They therefore go for smaller improvements that become increasingly esoteric: branch prediction being one of the simpler ones. This meant the chips became massively complex behemoths, and very hard to thoroughly test or determine potential vulnerabilities.

    The latest vulnerabilities (Meltdown and Spectre) are in the oh-that's-so-obvious category, and Intel and others at least started to put some safeguards in (but not enough). But the bugs have been in some Intel chips for a decade or more, and although it looks like they started putting safeguards in place, they hadn't fully sealed the breaches (and Spectre might be very hard to guard against whilst still keeping the speed gains).

    The industry feels it needs to keep Moore's Law going as long as possible (whether it's already been broken or not is another matter), and users want more speed using less power. Unfortunately 'security' is a harder sell, is vaguer, harder to test, and altogether messier. Therefore in the need for speed it sometime gets overlooked.

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/whats-behind-the-intel-design-flaw-forcing-numerous-patches/
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    A severe, proven exploitable in the wild flaw has been discovered in the last 20 years of intel chips. It allows any user process, so effectively any web page you visit, to read parts of the computer memory that should not be readable by that process.

    This has been dubbed "meltdown"

    There is a fix for it but it slows down your computer, depending on workload by up to 50%. If you just use our computer for gaming, web surfing and a little excel and word usage you'll see no effect but big serious servers running big serious software are going to noticeably slow down, and this will cost money, the graphs are already out there.

    Spectre is a second related problem that, fundamentally, affects every modern CPU that exists. It's exploitable under lab conditions and that means it will be exploitable in the wild at some point. It allows the second affect as Meltdown, supposedly protected memory can be read. Spectre will be with us for a long, long time.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Andrew said:


    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle


    I thought it was all going to be fixed in software, at a smallish performance cost.
    That's for Meltdown (though I've seen that cost at 30%). I believe Spectre is unfixable in software terms. It seems to be a somewhat theoretical risk at present but presumably it won't stay that way for ever.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,725
    No is only 37% because diminished is too difficult a term for Trump eteers
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    IIUC it's a choice between Replace All Hardware and Furiously Run Around Sticking Fingers In The Leakiest Holes In The Dyke And Hope Nothing Bad Happens. Organizations generally muddle through on the second of those for most aspects of information security, but YMMV.
  • Andrew said:


    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle


    I thought it was all going to be fixed in software, at a smallish performance cost.
    That's Meltdown at the cost of 30% of speed.

    SPECTRE is unfixable via software.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    IIUC it's a choice between Replace All Hardware and Furiously Run Around Sticking Fingers In The Leakiest Holes In The Dyke And Hope Nothing Bad Happens. Organizations generally muddle through on the second of those for most aspects of information security, but YMMV.
    Stop scaring me.
  • Speaking personally, this is the medical alert bracelet I wear.

    image
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544
    Andrew said:


    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle


    I thought it was all going to be fixed in software, at a smallish performance cost.
    Yes and no. AIUI: there are two faults - one being a subset of the other.

    Meltdown is a fairly specific attack, which works on all recent Intel x86 chips and some ARM chips (e.g. the Cortex-A). Spectre is a more general form of attack, to which many chips from all manufacturers may be susceptible.

    The meltdown attacks are easy to perform, and has worse consequences (it can gain access to Kernel memory), but is easy to patch with some performance penalties.

    The spectre attacks are harder to perform, has bad consequences (but not as bad as Meltdown), but might be impossible to fully patch in software.

    It appears the manufacturers have known about this for six months or so: they've had time to deal with it. The fact we're in the position we're in shows how difficult it is.

    All AIUI: the media reporting of this is poor and often confuses things, whilst I haven't had time to fully digest the technical info (except the stuff from ARM).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,544
    Foxy said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Cheers.

    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle
    If it is not just hype, then there is going to be big trouble for tech companies.

    Anyone have a list of safe devices?
    It's not quite that easy, as Spectre appears to be more of a type of fault than an actual fault. AIU for these, any chip without speculative prediction should be safe.

    I.e. slow ones.

    I reckon it's likely that other classes of vulnerability will be found that will work in different ways (note: I have no inside information on this, it's just that more people are looking).
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Cheers.

    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle
    On the bright side, I expect it to make lots of lawyers very rich and happy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    Nick Palmer just been on BBC news talking about the impact of Brexit on farming
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    Andrew said:


    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle


    I thought it was all going to be fixed in software, at a smallish performance cost.
    That's Meltdown at the cost of 30% of speed.

    SPECTRE is unfixable via software.
    The fix for the Meltdown vulnerability performance hit is very workload dependent. It’s ‘up to’ 30%.
  • On the security attacks, it seems to me that it shouldn't be too hard in practice to detect malware which is trying to exploit 'Spectre' before it can do any harm. Such a program is going to have to do some really weird stuff (lots and lots of calls to cache-control instructions in tight loops and lots of low-granularity timing calls). I don't think it would be beyond the wit of man to design protective software which scans for such odd behaviour.

    Disclaimer: I'm not a computer security specialist, but I do have a lot of experience of code analysis and low-level OS code.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    The most interesting aspect of the SPECTRE stuff is the impact on cloud computing.

    Rogue code can read protected memory, so if I rent space on the same Amazon cloud server as you, I can potentially read your data.

    Which is nice...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Cheers.

    As someone who is the designated person in charge of data security, I don't need this hassle
    On the bright side, I expect it to make lots of lawyers very rich and happy.

    So not all bad, then..... :)
  • Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of the SPECTRE stuff is the impact on cloud computing.

    Rogue code can read protected memory, so if I rent space on the same Amazon cloud server as you, I can potentially read your data.

    Which is nice...

    Superb.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018
    Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of the SPECTRE stuff is the impact on cloud computing.

    Rogue code can read protected memory, so if I rent space on the same Amazon cloud server as you, I can potentially read your data.

    Which is nice...

    Yep, you can keep rogue software off your desktop machine or your own server, but not off a cloud server which some baddie has rented a slot on.
  • Thank you everybody for answering my SPECTRE question.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    edited January 2018
    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.
  • Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    That seems fair enough. I don't think they should be trying to make political capital out of this in relation to Keir Starmer.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    This seems unfair: if the parole board genuinely believe he has been rehabilitated and doesn't represent an ongoing risk what are they supposed to do? It's not for them to second-guess the judge or the CPS.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    This seems unfair: if the parole board genuinely believe he has been rehabilitated and doesn't represent an ongoing risk what are they supposed to do? It's not for them to second-guess the judge or the CPS.
    Given the outcry someone needs to get the blame - I imagine several different people and groups are hoping they don't need to say much (and so avoid accusations of making capital from it) and that it won't fall on them.
  • Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    That seems fair enough. I don't think they should be trying to make political capital out of this in relation to Keir Starmer.
    Oh and this, the question is this Gove or Truss?

    Tonight there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Can someone explain this Intel story please?

    https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/949031422358118402

    Google "Companies warned to replace all hardware or risk ‘Spectre’ attack" and you will get the full ft article despite the paywall. It's a bit breathless and incoherent and doesn't really bear out the "replace all hardware" claim, but it possibly has the makings of Y2K all over again.
    Lucky for UK pensioners that our investment managers sold ARM before this came out...
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    The Parole Board's decision on releasing Worboys is an entirely legitimate subject for discussion, as is the decision not to prosecute him for many alleged offences. It's not unreasonable to scrutinise Starmer in relation to the latter issue if he was responsible for it.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    The Parole Board's decision on releasing Worboys is an entirely legitimate subject for discussion, as is the decision not to prosecute him for many alleged offences. It's not unreasonable to scrutinise Starmer in relation to the latter issue if he was responsible for it.

    Agree completely. Was someone suggesting otherwise?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited January 2018
    From the Parole Board website:

    Up to 3 members of a panel will decide whether to release you based on a file of documents the prison puts together. This includes:

    - your behaviour in prison
    - what you plan to do once released
    - whether you’re likely to commit more crime or are a danger to the public
    - why you’re in prison
    - previous offences
    - what the judge said when you were sentenced
    - the victim statement - this may be read at the hearing
    - medical, psychiatric and psychological evidence


    https://www.gov.uk/getting-parole/parole-board-hearing

    Also one of their two stated priorities is to increase public confidence in our work as an independent public body. Epic fail on that one.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    edited January 2018
    Trumpton

    Anyone following this should bear in mind that for Trump its all about the money (or the appearance of it) and pretense of money bringing success, power and attraction.

    If you take that edifice away, thats him done. This is why he is so fearful of the investigations and why Comey got dumped, because those have a lot to do with money. I've said it before, Trump is all in because he won't merely be run out of the presidency if and when the balloon goes up, his empire will go with him, he will be a derided nobody.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    These categories are a bit silly. Putting people born in 1980 and 1965 into the same box is ridiculous IMO.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    AndyJS said:

    The Parole Board's decision on releasing Worboys is an entirely legitimate subject for discussion, as is the decision not to prosecute him for many alleged offences. It's not unreasonable to scrutinise Starmer in relation to the latter issue if he was responsible for it.

    Agree completely. Was someone suggesting otherwise?
    Dunno, Richard Nabavi seemed to be suggesting holding Starmer to account for the decision not to prosecute alleged offences was trying to make political capital out of the situation.
  • AndyJS said:

    The Parole Board's decision on releasing Worboys is an entirely legitimate subject for discussion, as is the decision not to prosecute him for many alleged offences. It's not unreasonable to scrutinise Starmer in relation to the latter issue if he was responsible for it.

    Agree completely. Was someone suggesting otherwise?
    Dunno, Richard Nabavi seemed to be suggesting holding Starmer to account for the decision not to prosecute alleged offences was trying to make political capital out of the situation.
    Not quite, I was suggesting that the government and the Conservative Party shouldn't try to use this as a political attack line. Obviously journalists and commentators can do what they like.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307

    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    That seems fair enough. I don't think they should be trying to make political capital out of this in relation to Keir Starmer.
    Oh and this, the question is this Gove or Truss?

    Tonight there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.
    When politicians lose all good sense, its up to the legal system to help shackle them
    When the legal system loses all good sense, its up to the politicians to impose some sense
    When either of them lose of all sense its up to the public to punish them both for sitting in their ivory towers

    The public therefore should understand what it needs to do in this case.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,547
    Michael Wolff reports Donald Trump repeatedly telling the same stories word for word in the same conversations. That's a clear sign of dementia is it not? I had a relative who did as the disease took hold.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    These categories are a bit silly. Putting people born in 1980 and 1965 into the same box is ridiculous IMO.
    It can be pretty arbitrary, but people have been doing it for decades, so presumably its good for at least broad generalizations.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    These categories are a bit silly. Putting people born in 1980 and 1965 into the same box is ridiculous IMO.
    Static Generations are an intrinsically silly concept.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019

    AndyJS said:

    The Parole Board's decision on releasing Worboys is an entirely legitimate subject for discussion, as is the decision not to prosecute him for many alleged offences. It's not unreasonable to scrutinise Starmer in relation to the latter issue if he was responsible for it.

    Agree completely. Was someone suggesting otherwise?
    Dunno, Richard Nabavi seemed to be suggesting holding Starmer to account for the decision not to prosecute alleged offences was trying to make political capital out of the situation.
    Not quite, I was suggesting that the government and the Conservative Party shouldn't try to use this as a political attack line. Obviously journalists and commentators can do what they like.
    On that we are agreed. Guido is clearly on the case already. It will be interesting to see if his line gathers any traction.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    AndyJS said:

    Foxy said:

    On the subject of Millenials, all these dates are a bit arbitrary, but I would consider them to be those born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, who can remember little of world events before the Millennium year, so aged up to late Twenties at present.

    Between baby boomers (45-64) there is Generation X (65-80) and Gen Y (81-90) to fit in.

    In part, the nature of ones work does tend to shift these boundaries a bit. I do a lot of work with Students and Postgraduate trainees in the University and health sector, so have sympathies as well as Fox Jr (born in the nineties) to keep me in tune. I suspect that those working in the private sector are less in tune.

    These categories are a bit silly. Putting people born in 1980 and 1965 into the same box is ridiculous IMO.
    Depends on the people and the size of the box surely.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    FF43 said:

    Michael Wolff reports Donald Trump repeatedly telling the same stories word for word in the same conversations. That's a clear sign of dementia is it not? I had a relative who did as the disease took hold.

    The 'not entirely with it' line has been hawked for quite a while as a way to get him out but he seems to pass in public.
  • Y0kel said:

    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    That seems fair enough. I don't think they should be trying to make political capital out of this in relation to Keir Starmer.
    Oh and this, the question is this Gove or Truss?

    Tonight there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.
    When politicians lose all good sense, its up to the legal system to help shackle them
    When the legal system loses all good sense, its up to the politicians to impose some sense
    When either of them lose of all sense its up to the public to punish them both for sitting in their ivory towers

    The public therefore should understand what it needs to do in this case.
    Interesting that as a result of the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences are no longer allowed.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    edited January 2018

    Y0kel said:

    Judging by the front page of The Telegraph the government is putting the blame entirely on the parole board over the release of John Worboys.

    That seems fair enough. I don't think they should be trying to make political capital out of this in relation to Keir Starmer.
    Oh and this, the question is this Gove or Truss?

    Tonight there are fears that Worboys was released as part of a drive, launched by the Government in 2016, to give prisoners serving indefinite sentences the chance of release.
    When politicians lose all good sense, its up to the legal system to help shackle them
    When the legal system loses all good sense, its up to the politicians to impose some sense
    When either of them lose of all sense its up to the public to punish them both for sitting in their ivory towers

    The public therefore should understand what it needs to do in this case.
    Interesting that as a result of the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences are no longer allowed.
    IIRC it was from an ECHR decision in 2012.

    Edit - Yup

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/sep/18/strasbourg-judges-indeterminate-sentences-unlawful
  • Interesting that as a result of the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences are no longer allowed.

    In the old days the Home Secretary would decide on cases like this, taking the political implications and likely public reaction into account. Successive governments have tried to depoliticise such decisions by delegating them to independent bodies operating under transparent guidelines. This case shows the problem with that: decisions which cause public outcry, and for which the government is likely to get the blame anyway.
This discussion has been closed.