I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
Do you have a golden rule about that?
Oh thanks for reminding me; looks like The Golden Rule of Brexit was as applicable to the Customs union fuss of a few weeks ago as every other issue over the past couple of years...
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
Or course they do.
But I find it pretty juvenile. Like wearing badges, or such like.
At least they have moved on from the Alex Jones style "It wasn't Russia" conspiracy theories like how can we know what the nerve agent was if it was never made outside of Russia.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
Or course they do.
But I find it pretty juvenile. Like wearing badges, or such like.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
That is true, but there's also nothing wrong in suggesting people who were so devastated by the outcome could have put a bit more effort in to prevent it, particularly if they are the same ones who get angry at the people who did - it's merely expressing an opinion.
Personally I didn't do any campaigning as while I went for one option I could live with both, but if, for instance, somebody is angry about their future being taken away, a common complaint, well, is gentle chastisement of a lack of activity unreasonable? Some will think so, but then it would merely be an opinion.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
That is true, but there's also nothing wrong in suggesting people who were so devastated by the outcome could have put a bit more effort in to prevent it, particularly if they are the same ones who get angry at the people who did - it's merely expressing an opinion.
Personally I didn't do any campaigning as while I went for one option I could live with both, but if, for instance, somebody is angry about their future being taken away, a common complaint, well, is gentle chastisement of a lack of activity unreasonable? Some will think so, but then it would merely be an opinion.
Not everyone has the ability or time to campaign. And there are a multitude of people you would want to actively keep away from any campaigning.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
Or course they do.
But I find it pretty juvenile. Like wearing badges, or such like.
Did you wear any badges when campaigning?
Can't remember the last time I wore a badge Un-ironically..
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
That is true, but there's also nothing wrong in suggesting people who were so devastated by the outcome could have put a bit more effort in to prevent it, particularly if they are the same ones who get angry at the people who did - it's merely expressing an opinion.
Personally I didn't do any campaigning as while I went for one option I could live with both, but if, for instance, somebody is angry about their future being taken away, a common complaint, well, is gentle chastisement of a lack of activity unreasonable? Some will think so, but then it would merely be an opinion.
Not everyone has the ability or time to campaign. And there are a multitude of people you would want to actively keep away from any campaigning.
Oh, undoubtedly. But if someone wants to ask 'Did you have the time and ability to campaign but did not?', it's probably fair game, to a degree.
I see Channel 4 news making real tits of themselves , stating "it is up to SNP" whether Clara Ponsati is arrested. You would expect they has some journalists that had a clue and understood it is up to justice system the courts to decide who gets arrested or not , SNP have no say whatsoever in it.
I wonder what the correlation between the juvenile 'FBPE' slogans on twitter and people who actually did anything during the referendum is...
People have a right to express an opinion, even if they didn't 'do anything' during a campaign, and even (shock, horror) if they didn't vote. People who campaigned do not have any superior rights in any democracy.
That is true, but there's also nothing wrong in suggesting people who were so devastated by the outcome could have put a bit more effort in to prevent it, particularly if they are the same ones who get angry at the people who did - it's merely expressing an opinion.
Personally I didn't do any campaigning as while I went for one option I could live with both, but if, for instance, somebody is angry about their future being taken away, a common complaint, well, is gentle chastisement of a lack of activity unreasonable? Some will think so, but then it would merely be an opinion.
Not everyone has the ability or time to campaign. And there are a multitude of people you would want to actively keep away from any campaigning.
I see Channel 4 news making real tits of themselves , stating "it is up to SNP" whether Clara Ponsati is arrested. You would expect they has some journalists that had a clue and understood it is up to justice system the courts to decide who gets arrested or not , SNP have no say whatsoever in it.
I would hope that the SNP are not deciding who is arrested or not, that would rather suggest everyone completely missed them making an enormous power grab!
I see Channel 4 news making real tits of themselves , stating "it is up to SNP" whether Clara Ponsati is arrested. You would expect they has some journalists that had a clue and understood it is up to justice system the courts to decide who gets arrested or not , SNP have no say whatsoever in it.
I would hope that the SNP are not deciding who is arrested or not, that would rather suggest everyone completely missed them making an enormous power grab!
Exactly, is it any wonder people deride the UK news outlets and media. They seem to have got rid of any staff that has a clue to what they are doing and just print garbage.
This seems odd as I thought Chakrabarti had more or less concluded that Labour did not have an anti-semitisim problem! Corbyn's made the statement because this issue is spinning out of control.
That's Baroness Chakrabarti to you!
Baroness Chakrabarti of Whitewashton to give the full title.
I'm of the view that we're not yet at a tip-over point where more jobs are lost to new tech than are gained from applications of that new tech. In fact, IMV it'll take either a catastrophe - e.g. a solar storm or EMP event - or true AI for it to happen. And I'm a good deal more bearish than many on here about the future prospects of AI.
As an aside, after the war my dad was taught to plough both with horses and with a tractor. He is the last generation for which horse-ploughing would have been seen as a 'useful' skill. He also remembers steam-ploughs - a steam engine at each end of a field, with a cable between the two pulling the plough, although that was a dying craft even when he was a child.
The rate of change has been massive. How will I explain to my three-year old that TV's used to be big boxes with tiny screens, and the state-of-the-art was black and white?
I am much more in the camp that ML / AI will assist in jobs rather than widespread eradication e.g. more and more ML will process medical scans / test results and present information to consultants.
Yeah, I'm with you on that. It's more people like SeanT who witter on about all lorry drivers being out of work in ten years (as it must have been a couple of years ago, he's got eight years left).
One prospect that intrigues me is 3D printing. I'm incredibly bullish (*) on it, and good multi-material 3D printing that is cheap enough, put together with good designs, could be truly transformative.
The shell often house is the cheapest part. The land it sits on, the fitting out of electricity, water, sewage etc. God forbid it's in an area that needs HVAC.
It's a garbage project and I don't know why it is getting press.
"The team laid out three goals. First, they wanted to significantly decrease the cost of building a house, though the homes they were currently building–with concrete walls and a simple design–were already very low-cost, at $6,500. They also wanted to make construction faster, while improving the quality of the final home."
I mean if they are currently managing it for $6,500 why not back them to make it cheaper?
Interesting thread by Antifrank, for which, as always, many thanks.
I remember in the 1970s being told life would be one long leisure-filled utopia by 2000 with gadgets doing everything for us. Strangely I see more people working harder and longer hours than ever.
We have been conditioned by Weber and the capitalist model to seek virtue in work and especially hard work for some strange reason. Technology has undoubtedly removed some (though no means all) of the transactional task and this has been especially pronounced in non-manual back office environments. The "system" now does what departments full of accounts, secretaries, ledger clerks and the like used to do.
Yet we still need the likes of bricklayers, plumbers, chippies and as yet no machine has replaced these skills so in "horse" terms you may not need a pit pony any more but racehorses are much the same now (physically much stronger and fitter) as they were 200 years ago.
It's long been my belief you can either manage your information or your work or it will manage you and the extent to which the work manages us is one I've mused on. I question the value of tasks I am given and see others performing - "improving the customer experience" is a good one.
It's a huge area and until I see my Chinese takeaway order taken by a robot, cooked by a robot and delivered to my house by a robot I'll be convinced we'll still all have to work for our sweet and sour.
It's a huge area and until I see my Chinese takeaway order taken by a robot, cooked by a robot and delivered to my house by a robot I'll be convinced we'll still all have to work for our sweet and sour.
This is a good thread header. I suppose it is worth reflecting on the fact that each generation before us faced existential problems, although perhaps now they have multiplied.
In my view, the problems arising from AI and automation expose the redundancy of the idea of the free market. The idea has had its day. The market is not going to solve the problem of automation. It is something that must be done by the state.
It's a huge area and until I see my Chinese takeaway order taken by a robot, cooked by a robot and delivered to my house by a robot I'll be convinced we'll still all have to work for our sweet and sour.
An unkind person might point out that when a similar article was written in November 2016 a certain Mr Meeks wrote this -
"When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world."
Still I agree that there will be - and will need to be - much more focus on a fair sharing out of the spoils from a changed world of work.
PS But if I am going to be a horse can I be Frankel please. A life of winning exceptionally and being adulated followed by luxurious retirement and sex on tap. I mean, what's not to like.....
"but instead subtract from the human labour required" is a key element: what becomes "required"? It's precisely this that's created the new work in the past. When 90% of the population were involved in food production, that had to be the work required. When we advanced to the point that we needed far fewer people to produce the needed food, we started producing more of other things. Today, 15% of the population is involved in healthcare - something not possible when 90% were in the fields.
Further to that, the jobs that most get replaced by soulless machines are the ones that most treat and rely on workers to act as soulless machines.
Whenever we've freed up manpower by reducing the need for labour in existing production, we've found something else we wanted to produce from further up Maslow's pyramid of needs. Human needs are finite, but our wants aren't. Personally, I might not see the attraction in coffee provision, or fitness instruction, or wedding planning, but people as a whole obviously want this, and we now provide it. More people in research, or law, or entertainment, or sport, or whatever...
The main issue, though, is the transition phase. While the next generation might not miss having typing pools, printing departments, gramophone repairers, and so on, those who have been trained and experienced in those areas can end up on the scrapheap of history. THAT is the key problem.
It does rather invite questions as to how Baroness Chakrabarti's inquiry missed what is now being apologised for.
Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis
1. People turn a blind eye. 2. People can't believe it. 3. People refuse to believe it. 4. People accept that something has gone wrong but insist that it is limited to "1 or 2 bad apples". 5. When it becomes clear that it is not "1 or 2" stages 1, 2 and 3 are repeated. 6. A limited inquiry is started in the hope that this will sort matters out. It won't. 7. People become more concerned with protecting the institution rather than dealing with what is wrong. 8. The non-apology apology. 9. Eventually ...... a much more extensive investigation is done and remedial measures are taken. 10. Alas ...... the institution is dealing with the continuing fall out from the previous failures for a long time after it has cleaned itself up.
Applicable to Oxfam, Facebook and the Labour Party. (And many others.)
Chakrabarti has done her bit for stage 6. Most of Corbyn's Labour is at stage 7 though some are still stuck at stage 3 or stage 4. Watson is at stage 8. Corbyn's statement is welcome but may end up - if no effective action is taken - being another version of stage 8.
When - and indeed whether - we ever get to stage 9 is another matter.
Thanks. I've robustly avoided buying one as it would be too much of a time sink. That, and the fact that I'm cr@p at design.
But there will be a point where capability and price will meet to make the tech truly transformative. Want a new toy for a children's party. Don't go to Toys R Us (*) or Amazon, but just download the designs and print one.
We're not there yet, and won't be for many years, but we will. But even this may end up increasing the number of jobs rather than decreasing it.
(*) Ooops
Synthetic biology is gone to be an incredible breakthrough
Thanks. I've robustly avoided buying one as it would be too much of a time sink. That, and the fact that I'm cr@p at design.
But there will be a point where capability and price will meet to make the tech truly transformative. Want a new toy for a children's party. Don't go to Toys R Us (*) or Amazon, but just download the designs and print one.
We're not there yet, and won't be for many years, but we will. But even this may end up increasing the number of jobs rather than decreasing it.
(*) Ooops
Synthetic biology is gone to be an incredible breakthrough
It's an area I know nothing about. Could you recommend a primer?
"On Friday, Labour MP Angela Smith joined other members in supporting Ms Berger and sent a statement to the Leader's Office, calling for Mr Corbyn to appear before MPs to explain himself.
It read: "It is horrifying that anyone in our party - never mind the leader - should be able to condone anti-Semitism without facing consequences. And rather than facing up, Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to dissemble to defend himself.
"It is simply not credible to suggest that a man with his knowledge of foreign affairs did not recognise those images for what they were.
"Many of us would call for a formal disciplinary process, but the sad truth is that our party has been so badly undermined that no one would believe it would be meaningful.""
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
Thanks. I've robustly avoided buying one as it would be too much of a time sink. That, and the fact that I'm cr@p at design.
But there will be a point where capability and price will meet to make the tech truly transformative. Want a new toy for a children's party. Don't go to Toys R Us (*) or Amazon, but just download the designs and print one.
We're not there yet, and won't be for many years, but we will. But even this may end up increasing the number of jobs rather than decreasing it.
(*) Ooops
Synthetic biology is gone to be an incredible breakthrough
Short version - corporate defector in biotech has brilliant new technology. Company finds out, arranges for the data on disc to be changed. So when he tries to make copies in the new lab - the machine prints a virus instead.
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
You're right but the one thing he doesn't control is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
You're right but the one thing he doesn't control is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
After the next election he will have his own Momentum PLP - even if he doesn’t form a govt he will have hard left MPs in place for decades.
It does rather invite questions as to how Baroness Chakrabarti's inquiry missed what is now being apologised for.
Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis
1. People turn a blind eye. 2. People can't believe it. 3. People refuse to believe it. 4. People accept that something has gone wrong but insist that it is limited to "1 or 2 bad apples". 5. When it becomes clear that it is not "1 or 2" stages 1, 2 and 3 are repeated. 6. A limited inquiry is started in the hope that this will sort matters out. It won't. 7. People become more concerned with protecting the institution rather than dealing with what is wrong. 8. The non-apology apology. 9. Eventually ...... a much more extensive investigation is done and remedial measures are taken. 10. Alas ...... the institution is dealing with the continuing fall out from the previous failures for a long time after it has cleaned itself up.
Applicable to Oxfam, Facebook and the Labour Party. (And many others.)
Chakrabarti has done her bit for stage 6. Most of Corbyn's Labour is at stage 7 though some are still stuck at stage 3 or stage 4. Watson is at stage 8. Corbyn's statement is welcome but may end up - if no effective action is taken - being another version of stage 8.
When - and indeed whether - we ever get to stage 9 is another matter.
Hermann Kahn liked to point out that if a problem was big enough, the solution sought was always to destroy/discredit the people pointing out the problem.
Interesting thread by Antifrank, for which, as always, many thanks.
I remember in the 1970s being told life would be one long leisure-filled utopia by 2000 with gadgets doing everything for us. Strangely I see more people working harder and longer hours than ever.
We have been conditioned by Weber and the capitalist model to seek virtue in work and especially hard work for some strange reason. Technology has undoubtedly removed some (though no means all) of the transactional task and this has been especially pronounced in non-manual back office environments. The "system" now does what departments full of accounts, secretaries, ledger clerks and the like used to do.
Yet we still need the likes of bricklayers, plumbers, chippies and as yet no machine has replaced these skills so in "horse" terms you may not need a pit pony any more but racehorses are much the same now (physically much stronger and fitter) as they were 200 years ago.
It's long been my belief you can either manage your information or your work or it will manage you and the extent to which the work manages us is one I've mused on. I question the value of tasks I am given and see others performing - "improving the customer experience" is a good one.
It's a huge area and until I see my Chinese takeaway order taken by a robot, cooked by a robot and delivered to my house by a robot I'll be convinced we'll still all have to work for our sweet and sour.
We are already there, surely? Ordering by internet is ordering by robot, it's only regulatory issues and the current lack of address-level rather than postcode-level mapping which stops waymo delivering to you, and cooking is just a few fine motor skills which I believe we already have in bomb disposal bots. Where in your view are the sticking points?
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
*Puts popcorn away*....
Yes. After Corbyn you may get a Labour leader who doesn’t have some of his more problematic views (e.g. Russia) but they’ll still pretty left wing. The dream that some have that it’ll be some centrist, moderate leader is highly unrealistic.
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
*Puts popcorn away*....
Yes. After Corbyn you may get a Labour leader who doesn’t have some of his more problematic views (e.g. Russia) but they’ll still pretty left wing. The dream that some have that it’ll be some centrist, moderate leader is highly unrealistic.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
You're right but the one thing he doesn't control is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
Suspension from the PLP only bans an MP from PLP meetings. Not something Corbyn would be too unhappy with. AFAIK the power also lies with the party whip - or did in 2006 when Jacqui Smith, ironically wanted to use the power to tell Corbyn and co to bog off. They could I think vote to change their rules, but would be a bit pointless as would only be censure from a body Corbyn has totally disregarded anyway - see the previous confidence vote. And MPs know it would probably backfire among the membership. Really the only option available is the nuclear one - threaten a split.
We are already there, surely? Ordering by internet is ordering by robot, it's only regulatory issues and the current lack of address-level rather than postcode-level mapping which stops waymo delivering to you, and cooking is just a few fine motor skills which I believe we already have in bomb disposal bots. Where in your view are the sticking points?
We may be "there" technologically but we aren't there in any meaningful sense. I'm intrigued by the comparison between cooking roast duck and mushrooms and bomb disposal.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
We are already there, surely? Ordering by internet is ordering by robot, it's only regulatory issues and the current lack of address-level rather than postcode-level mapping which stops waymo delivering to you, and cooking is just a few fine motor skills which I believe we already have in bomb disposal bots. Where in your view are the sticking points?
We may be "there" technologically but we aren't there in any meaningful sense. I'm intrigued by the comparison between cooking roast duck and mushrooms and bomb disposal.
Aren't those bomb disposal things just remote controlled?
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
We are already there, surely? Ordering by internet is ordering by robot, it's only regulatory issues and the current lack of address-level rather than postcode-level mapping which stops waymo delivering to you, and cooking is just a few fine motor skills which I believe we already have in bomb disposal bots. Where in your view are the sticking points?
We may be "there" technologically but we aren't there in any meaningful sense. I'm intrigued by the comparison between cooking roast duck and mushrooms and bomb disposal.
Aren't those bomb disposal things just remote controlled?
OK, poor analogy (though of course we wouldn't necessarily know one way or the other). But who needs analogies when a google of "autonomous cooking robot" throws up so many instances of the actual thing?
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
You're right but the one thing he doesn't control is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
Suspension from the PLP only bans an MP from PLP meetings. Not something Corbyn would be too unhappy with. AFAIK the power also lies with the party whip - or did in 2006 when Jacqui Smith, ironically wanted to use the power to tell Corbyn and co to bog off. They could I think vote to change their rules, but would be a bit pointless as would only be censure from a body Corbyn has totally disregarded anyway - see the previous confidence vote. And MPs know it would probably backfire among the membership. Really the only option available is the nuclear one - threaten a split.
Labour MPs couldn't take the skin off a rice pudding. They will do nothing. Other than complain. Ineffectually. Those for whom this is all too much will leave. And the rest will keep their heads down. Jews do not matter to Labour. Too few of them to count. And Labour probably - and sadly - thinks that there are more votes in being seen as anti-Jew, especially if this can be presented as being anti-Israel and/or anti-banker/capitalist/American. They may well be right in thinking this. Even if it stinks to high heaven from a moral perspective.
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
It won't happen. Read that FT article that was posted earlier. Corbyn is in charge of all the centres of power in the party.
You're right but the one thing he doesn't control is the Parliamentary Labour Party.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
Suspension from the PLP only bans an MP from PLP meetings. Not something Corbyn would be too unhappy with. AFAIK the power also lies with the party whip - or did in 2006 when Jacqui Smith, ironically wanted to use the power to tell Corbyn and co to bog off. They could I think vote to change their rules, but would be a bit pointless as would only be censure from a body Corbyn has totally disregarded anyway - see the previous confidence vote. And MPs know it would probably backfire among the membership. Really the only option available is the nuclear one - threaten a split.
Labour MPs couldn't take the skin off a rice pudding. They will do nothing. Other than complain. Ineffectually. Those for whom this is all too much will leave. And the rest will keep their heads down. Jews do not matter to Labour. Too few of them to count. And Labour probably - and sadly - thinks that there are more votes in being seen as anti-Jew, especially if this can be presented as being anti-Israel and/or anti-banker/capitalist/American. They may well be right in thinking this. Even if it stinks to high heaven from a moral perspective.
Labour MPs - the only group on the planet who are a more imposing bunch of losers than the Aussie cricket team?
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
IANAE, but AFAIAA it is much more complex than that, with two sets of signals - one civvie and one military. The civvie one has always been available; the military one has not.
Though GPS has got even more complex with the later class satellites.
And they do still have the ability to screw with GPS signals - every so often there are notices that GPS signals will be degraded around training areas through jammers.
and for which I have done sweet FA about up to now.
Well, the first step is in admitting there is a problem, and it only took a dozen or more instances to get to that. Progress!
In all seriousness, if he is admitting there is a problem, that is indeed something. Up to now it has seemed as though, deep down, he doesn't believe there is, even though others insist of him that he takes it seriously. It reminds me of how during the GE Farron was getting crap for deliberately woolly statements about whether he believed gay sex was a sin, but some of the more fervent LDs (or at least 1) was strident in insisting he had made himself clear and it was just opponents stirring things up for nothing, until he came out unambiguously and said he didn't think it was a sin, leading many to ask why the hell he hadn't just said so in the first place.
Of course we now know he was lying when he said that.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
IANAE, but AFAIAA it is much more complex than that, with two sets of signals - one civvie and one military. The civvie one has always been available; the military one has not.
Though GPS has got even more complex with the later class satellites.
And they do still have the ability to screw with GPS signals - every so often there are notices that GPS signals will be degraded around training areas through jammers.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
That would assume that multiple generals felt like straight up lying to Congress on multiple occasions.
It also mis-understands the US military position on precision - they never wanted to restrict it. They assumed from the start that "the other guys" would have their own, equally accurate system. The encryption specified (Q code) was to be used as digital signature - so that in time of war, it would be much harder to spoof or jam the signals.
The whole twiddling with the civilian channel stuff came from the same people in the civilian portion of the government who wanted everyone to use 40 bit encryption. They are looked on with considerable contempt in military circles in the US.
The reason for the turn to selective jamming was so that the US Military could guarantee to US civilian operators that their signals outside a warzone would be accurate and undegraded. The US Military sees GPS as an enormous sales pitch for the cost of US military space (more than the cost of NASA) to the US public/corporations.
The headline on this story has a bit of the feeling to me of someone testing the waters, to see how people react so the actual punishment can be tailored accordingly, as people react against what would seem disproportionate, and so through the media raising the possibility.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
IANAE, but AFAIAA it is much more complex than that, with two sets of signals - one civvie and one military. The civvie one has always been available; the military one has not.
Though GPS has got even more complex with the later class satellites.
And they do still have the ability to screw with GPS signals - every so often there are notices that GPS signals will be degraded around training areas through jammers.
I think you can jam any radio signal, that's not a feature of the GPS network.
To *effectively* jam GPS takes a bit more than mis-tuning a walkie talkie. Hence quite a bit of money was spent on the selective denial system.
The military code was encrypted - not to hide it from the enemy, but for 2 other reasons. The first was digital signature - the encryption ensures that faking a signal is hard. The second was that if you have the encryption key, it become possible to get a lock when the signal is lower strength than the jamming.
The headline on this story has a bit of the feeling to me of someone testing the waters, to see how people react so the actual punishment can be tailored accordingly, as people react against what would seem disproportionate, and so through the media raising the possibility.
A life ban for David Warner would do wonders for the Aussie Test side. Given his long history of indiscipline, cheating and gamesmanship married to a cry-baby attitude when it gets dished out to him, plus a flat-track bully batting style that works only in Australia and India, he is one of the more loathsome figures in world sport and it would be good to kick him out.
However, even though he is clearly unfit to be captain I would be sorry to think Steve Smith was totally lost to the Test arena. A twelve month ban for being an utter twit and silly bully would perhaps be more proportionate.
The phrasing of this apology is interesting. He apologised for Labour's anti-semitism. But it's his personal anti-Semitic antics that are the problem here.
It reminds me very much of his condemning all violence in Venezuela. The government was the one doing most of the killing, but as they were his good friends and fellow self-proclaimed socialists he couldn't bear to call them out.
Gavin Williamson "hits the roof" after finding out that Brexit means being frozen out of Galileo.
God! How mediocre this Brexit.
Is there really a risk the US will turn off GPS for the UK? Seems like a giant vanity project to me.
I believe the risk is that when the world goes to defcon insane the US encrypts GPS and is choosy about to whom if anyone, except its own forces, it gives a key.
The hardware to encrypt the signals (as opposed to the digital signature stuff) was discontinued in GPS satellites quite a while ago. As was the stuff for degrading accuracy.
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Of course we don't know for sure if the functionality has actually been disabled/removed.
IANAE, but AFAIAA it is much more complex than that, with two sets of signals - one civvie and one military. The civvie one has always been available; the military one has not.
Though GPS has got even more complex with the later class satellites.
And they do still have the ability to screw with GPS signals - every so often there are notices that GPS signals will be degraded around training areas through jammers.
I think you can jam any radio signal, that's not a feature of the GPS network.
To *effectively* jam GPS takes a bit more than mis-tuning a walkie talkie. Hence quite a bit of money was spent on the selective denial system.
The military code was encrypted - not to hide it from the enemy, but for 2 other reasons. The first was digital signature - the encryption ensures that faking a signal is hard. The second was that if you have the encryption key, it become possible to get a lock when the signal is lower strength than the jamming.
The closest thing to an identified source in the FT story is "allies of Gavin Williamson," who I am now convinced has a firm strategy of being an arsehole like IDS only more so, in the hope it gets him where it got IDS. This is a non-story which will go away but leave a faint trace of a memory in the brains of Col. & Mrs Tory-Bigot of Gavin standing up for Blighty, again.
And since Stalin was carrying out anti-Semitic purges long after the Red Army had liberated and documented Auschwitz that doesn't really move the debate forward much...
An unkind person might point out that when a similar article was written in November 2016 a certain Mr Meeks wrote this -
"When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world."
Still I agree that there will be - and will need to be - much more focus on a fair sharing out of the spoils from a changed world of work.
PS But if I am going to be a horse can I be Frankel please. A life of winning exceptionally and being adulated followed by luxurious retirement and sex on tap. I mean, what's not to like.....
The closest thing to an identified source in the FT story is "allies of Gavin Williamson," who I am now convinced has a firm strategy of being an arsehole like IDS only more so, in the hope it gets him where it got IDS.
"The lightweight man is here to stay, and he's turning up the cringe factor."
Thanks. I've robustly avoided buying one as it would be too much of a time sink. That, and the fact that I'm cr@p at design.
But there will be a point where capability and price will meet to make the tech truly transformative. Want a new toy for a children's party. Don't go to Toys R Us (*) or Amazon, but just download the designs and print one.
We're not there yet, and won't be for many years, but we will. But even this may end up increasing the number of jobs rather than decreasing it.
(*) Ooops
Synthetic biology is gone to be an incredible breakthrough
It's an area I know nothing about. Could you recommend a primer?
It’s a catch all term so no primer that I know of. This is ok as a start
Comments
But I find it pretty juvenile. Like wearing badges, or such like.
Personally I didn't do any campaigning as while I went for one option I could live with both, but if, for instance, somebody is angry about their future being taken away, a common complaint, well, is gentle chastisement of a lack of activity unreasonable? Some will think so, but then it would merely be an opinion.
spineless merchant bankers will do nothing
I mean if they are currently managing it for $6,500 why not back them to make it cheaper?
Interesting thread by Antifrank, for which, as always, many thanks.
I remember in the 1970s being told life would be one long leisure-filled utopia by 2000 with gadgets doing everything for us. Strangely I see more people working harder and longer hours than ever.
We have been conditioned by Weber and the capitalist model to seek virtue in work and especially hard work for some strange reason. Technology has undoubtedly removed some (though no means all) of the transactional task and this has been especially pronounced in non-manual back office environments. The "system" now does what departments full of accounts, secretaries, ledger clerks and the like used to do.
Yet we still need the likes of bricklayers, plumbers, chippies and as yet no machine has replaced these skills so in "horse" terms you may not need a pit pony any more but racehorses are much the same now (physically much stronger and fitter) as they were 200 years ago.
It's long been my belief you can either manage your information or your work or it will manage you and the extent to which the work manages us is one I've mused on. I question the value of tasks I am given and see others performing - "improving the customer experience" is a good one.
It's a huge area and until I see my Chinese takeaway order taken by a robot, cooked by a robot and delivered to my house by a robot I'll be convinced we'll still all have to work for our sweet and sour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s17IAj-XpU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSBTCOEdLkA
In my view, the problems arising from AI and automation expose the redundancy of the idea of the free market. The idea has had its day. The market is not going to solve the problem of automation. It is something that must be done by the state.
An unkind person might point out that when a similar article was written in November 2016 a certain Mr Meeks wrote this -
"When employment is at record levels in Britain, it is quirky to worry about machines destroying jobs and wealth in the short term. Technology will free up humans to do more of hitherto unappreciated but newly valued activities. Different skills will be required so some will be losers (including many lawyers) but there will be other winners.
Much greater and cheaper computerisation will make it easier for all of us to convert our ideas into reality. That would lead to a huge upsurge in creativity and innovation. Britain's skills base is well suited to exploit such a world."
Still I agree that there will be - and will need to be - much more focus on a fair sharing out of the spoils from a changed world of work.
PS But if I am going to be a horse can I be Frankel please. A life of winning exceptionally and being adulated followed by luxurious retirement and sex on tap. I mean, what's not to like.....
It's precisely this that's created the new work in the past. When 90% of the population were involved in food production, that had to be the work required. When we advanced to the point that we needed far fewer people to produce the needed food, we started producing more of other things. Today, 15% of the population is involved in healthcare - something not possible when 90% were in the fields.
Further to that, the jobs that most get replaced by soulless machines are the ones that most treat and rely on workers to act as soulless machines.
Whenever we've freed up manpower by reducing the need for labour in existing production, we've found something else we wanted to produce from further up Maslow's pyramid of needs. Human needs are finite, but our wants aren't. Personally, I might not see the attraction in coffee provision, or fitness instruction, or wedding planning, but people as a whole obviously want this, and we now provide it. More people in research, or law, or entertainment, or sport, or whatever...
The main issue, though, is the transition phase. While the next generation might not miss having typing pools, printing departments, gramophone repairers, and so on, those who have been trained and experienced in those areas can end up on the scrapheap of history. THAT is the key problem.
That many...
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/977989258676973568
Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis
1. People turn a blind eye.
2. People can't believe it.
3. People refuse to believe it.
4. People accept that something has gone wrong but insist that it is limited to "1 or 2 bad apples".
5. When it becomes clear that it is not "1 or 2" stages 1, 2 and 3 are repeated.
6. A limited inquiry is started in the hope that this will sort matters out. It won't.
7. People become more concerned with protecting the institution rather than dealing with what is wrong.
8. The non-apology apology.
9. Eventually ...... a much more extensive investigation is done and remedial measures are taken.
10. Alas ...... the institution is dealing with the continuing fall out from the previous failures for a long time after it has cleaned itself up.
Applicable to Oxfam, Facebook and the Labour Party. (And many others.)
Chakrabarti has done her bit for stage 6. Most of Corbyn's Labour is at stage 7 though some are still stuck at stage 3 or stage 4. Watson is at stage 8. Corbyn's statement is welcome but may end up - if no effective action is taken - being another version of stage 8.
When - and indeed whether - we ever get to stage 9 is another matter.
Explain how those anti semites who were suspended found there way back then
"On Friday, Labour MP Angela Smith joined other members in supporting Ms Berger and sent a statement to the Leader's Office, calling for Mr Corbyn to appear before MPs to explain himself.
It read: "It is horrifying that anyone in our party - never mind the leader - should be able to condone anti-Semitism without facing consequences. And rather than facing up, Jeremy Corbyn has chosen to dissemble to defend himself.
"It is simply not credible to suggest that a man with his knowledge of foreign affairs did not recognise those images for what they were.
"Many of us would call for a formal disciplinary process, but the sad truth is that our party has been so badly undermined that no one would believe it would be meaningful.""
Now I'm sure Labour MPs know there is no point in complaining to the NEC.
But what are the rules of the Parliamentary Labour Party? It may seem outlandish but could the Parliamentary Labour Party take direct action against Corbyn?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43531575
That would indeed be popcorn time.
*Puts popcorn away*....
Short version - corporate defector in biotech has brilliant new technology. Company finds out, arranges for the data on disc to be changed. So when he tries to make copies in the new lab - the machine prints a virus instead.
I know it may seem outlandish but the fact is that Corbyn and his cronies have taken control of the party by using every trick in the book so the question is could the PLP do something similar?
If the likes of Angela Smith and Luciana Berger proposed a motion to the PLP that Corbyn be suspended from the PLP would Corbyn win that vote? He might well not.
Labour are done.
"Independent of whom? God?"
Will you do the Fandango?
https://twitter.com/johnmooneyst/status/977669815505686528?s=21
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/06/the-pb-cynics-dictionary-especially-complied-for-the-times/
"An inquiry: A process by which an embarrassing story disappears from public view."
The modern way that the US blocks GPS usage involves (effectively) the US jamming it themselves for limited geographical areas.
Granules or lumps is the question ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Precision_code
Though GPS has got even more complex with the later class satellites.
And they do still have the ability to screw with GPS signals - every so often there are notices that GPS signals will be degraded around training areas through jammers.
E.g.: https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2012/03/07/military-exercises-will-zap-gps-signals-in-three-areas
Of course we now know he was lying when he said that.
I think you can jam any radio signal, that's not a feature of the GPS network.
It also mis-understands the US military position on precision - they never wanted to restrict it. They assumed from the start that "the other guys" would have their own, equally accurate system. The encryption specified (Q code) was to be used as digital signature - so that in time of war, it would be much harder to spoof or jam the signals.
The whole twiddling with the civilian channel stuff came from the same people in the civilian portion of the government who wanted everyone to use 40 bit encryption. They are looked on with considerable contempt in military circles in the US.
The reason for the turn to selective jamming was so that the US Military could guarantee to US civilian operators that their signals outside a warzone would be accurate and undegraded. The US Military sees GPS as an enormous sales pitch for the cost of US military space (more than the cost of NASA) to the US public/corporations.
Smith, Warner could face life ban from CA
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22908218/steven-smith-david-warner-face-life-ban-ca
The military code was encrypted - not to hide it from the enemy, but for 2 other reasons. The first was digital signature - the encryption ensures that faking a signal is hard. The second was that if you have the encryption key, it become possible to get a lock when the signal is lower strength than the jamming.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/26/corbyn-allies-say-labour-antisemitism-row-driven-by-leadership-plot
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/can-jeremy-corbyns-labour-win-back-jewish-vote
However, even though he is clearly unfit to be captain I would be sorry to think Steve Smith was totally lost to the Test arena. A twelve month ban for being an utter twit and silly bully would perhaps be more proportionate.
It reminds me very much of his condemning all violence in Venezuela. The government was the one doing most of the killing, but as they were his good friends and fellow self-proclaimed socialists he couldn't bear to call them out.
The descent of the labour party from an opposition to a hard left anti Semitic party is deeply worrying and I get no pleasure from saying it.
The PLP must act and if they do not., they will be responsible for overseeing the end of labour as we have known it
Just so sad
If that really was the case, it really seems as though the rules are being retro-fitted to put them in the wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology