hmmm... what about slashdot?
and i feel vindicated
reddit needs to pay its mods (say, a cut of ad revenue from their sub)
if they work for free, they have no real power over them. which is unstable as current developments indicate
also, if they pay them, they can fire them
you can say paying mods will change the tenor of reddit but this is bullshit: what motivates someone to mod for free is a sort of pathetic need for power, which is actually worse than any nefariousness due to filthy lucre as their motivation
bye bye reddit, you were fun. but you have a fatal flaw in your power structure:
uncaring admins and abusive mods
so what's the next site to rise?
Take SSL/TLS. Are they going to demand both parties stash the session key, or do their handshaking through a proxy logging each packet?
Probably not. You're thinking like a geek instead of a politician. Politicians don't get their way by understanding technology. They get their way by finding people who do and forcing them to obey their will.
In this case, what Cameron means by banning encryption is passing laws that say something like, "If your website is used by people in the UK, you must always be able to comply with a warrant demanding data and you must provide all data, even if it is encrypted". The exact details of how that works is neither here nor there to them.
Now of course the interesting thing is how this interacts with jurisdictions, and whether it would be enough to make GCHQ shut up (probably not). The UK may or may not be able to force the hands of Facebook/Google/etc because the UK is such a huge market and they all have offices there, but China was a huge market too and Google walked away from that anyway. So it's hard to know how things would play out. For companies that have no UK exposure it's not clear what they'd do - probably use ad-hoc blocking of any website they suspect might be used by The Evil Terrorists if it doesn't comply. Could be a mess depending on how heavily they enforce it.
All those figures say is that birds of a feather flock together. Tory voters tend to live near each other and because the UK has a political system designed a long time ago for resolving local issues, not surprisingly it doesn't translate votes to seats directly at the national level. As local politics becomes less and less relevant, of course, people feel this system no longer works well for them.
However, as you note, it would not have mattered if Labour had won, or any other party. There are NO parties in the UK that believe people should be able to keep secrets from the government. It's just not something that fits into the political worldview. And because the voting system collapses thousands of decisions down to just one every so many years, surveillance and encryption is simply not democratically decided at all. Basically the wheel of power is decided by the economy, and that's about it.
Unfortunately this is not specific to the UK and is true nearly everywhere, France is even worse for example, and the USA pretends to care but realistically lots of Congressmen would very much like total surveillance of Americans
Ha ha, did you think he meant warrants?
He meant warrant. Unfortunately as is often the case with the Tories, they use words differently to how ordinary people do. By warrant he means a ministerial rubber-stamp. For instance Theresa May last year alone "signed" nearly 2,800 warrants, a number that clearly shows zero attempt to investigate their legitimacy and indeed almost certainly means some anonymous flunky is signing them on her behalf.
your alternative method is inferior as the specific request is tech *skills*, which you find on resumes, people speaking to their merits to get hired
not "tech appearing together on message boards," which indicated a whole host of relationships, relationship by skillset being far down the list
the simple fact is there is no perfect methodology so criticizing the methodology for being imperfect is without merit. and in articulating a yet even more inferior methodology in your latest comment i have to assume you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, you're barely trying, you're not serious, and so this useless thread is over
i was joking!
are you joking?
the arnold schwarzenegger move "terminator genisys" is in theatres and hollywood wanted a really effective advertising stunt
are you saying there exists some implementation that analyzes every resume in existence perfectly? it's "incomplete" in the sense that any such effort is incomplete and imperfect by nature of the problem. your criticism is invalid, you don't understand the task if you expect completeness is possible
and i've seen my fair share of poor visualizations
but i think this is actually really well done, useful even
congratulations to Simon Hughes
it's just analyzing the appearance of words in listed skills
actual database pros would not put "database" as an enumerated skill
maybe the kind of person who lists "windows" "internet explorer" and "microsoft word" as tech skills would, but such people would not show up in the data set analyzed here: resumes from serious professionals working in the tech sector
so it makes sense "database" would only be a tiny little distant circle
hitler liked dogs and thought highly of investing in highway infrastructure
people can be the epitome of evil and still be right about something. your "thinking" on this topic is basically the same as saying you hate dogs because hitler liked them
yes, the right screams about iran's bomb program. that doesn't mean the right is suddenly correct about everything, they are warmongering douchebags. however, they are actually correct *in this one instance* about the fucking bomb program
it also doesn't mean we should go to war. "i agree with the right that iran has a bomb program therefore i have to do exactly what the right says we should do about that" does not actually logically follow genius. but most importantly, it doesn't mean the nuclear program magically does not exist just because neocons are poopyheads and we don't like warmongering neocons
believing iraq has a nuclear program because some iraqi went to niger once and niger had yellowcake is *exactly* as fucking stupid as believing iran does not have a bomb program because we don't like donald rumsfeld: a ridiculous erroneous connection for a stupid prejudicial reason
so: congratulations: you are what you hate. your "thinking" is the same quality as warmongering and propagandized american idiots. intelligence is not doing the opposite of who you hate. that's just the same idiocies in reverse. intelligence is about actually being fucking perceptive and observing reality, actual reality. guided by facts nor prejudices. which means every once in a while *gasp* you and your ideological foes agree on the observation before you. and it doesn't logically follow that you agree with them about what to do about it, right genius? you deny what they want to do about reality, you don't deny reality!
seriously, you are a fucking idiot on this topic. you are to me exactly the same kind of loser as the idiots who thought iraq had a nuclear program. you believe something obviously not real because of who you like/ dislike prejudicially who says the lie. fucking moronic
there's identifying and knowing your weaknesses, planning for them, and failing over swiftly and gracefully
then there's not doing a damn thing about the weaknesses, and using the same damn set up forever
also, we're not talking about exchanging product keys for cracked software. we're talking about a system used in a wold war where thousands of lives and the prestige of nations depended upon a good implementation plan
The article carries echoes of the "profit is evil and government is good" mantra so popular lately.
that's a false dichotomy that only appeals to a simpleton
profit taking cannot occur without the stability and security established by government. likewise, government cannot exist without tapping into the profits it makes possible. government without the individual pursuit of capital is hell. and the social darwinistic pursuit of capital be damned the externalities is a simply another flavor of hell
it's just ignorance to imagine that capitalism and government are enemies. one does not exist without the other
we're talking about nuclear
nuclear is great until something bad happens. and then the possibilities are so exceedingly horrendous that there's nothing insurance can effectively do to offset the damage. what's the going insurance rate on giving cancer to people for decades and rendering large swaths of land unlivable for generations?
insurance is only effective when the premiums paid cover the probability of damages possible. but the damages possible with nuclear are so stupefyingly huge that the insurance company would quickly go bankrupt instead of paying out