Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Al Murray’s South Thanet bid looks like an effort to stop N

124»

Comments

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Charles said:

    how come Nick Clegg's smiling in that graphic?
    You would have thought the Sun could have had a, -) or a -( according to % up or down. But then again I am still waiting for ''How do they do it'' to show them making a flat pack wardrobe.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    @Speedy

    The government should require universities to ban gender apartheid or they won't get public funds.

    What about when muslims are 10% or 20% of the population as you said?
    A democratically elected government would support muslim demands in exchange for their votes.

    What is going on in Universities is a symptom of the future, who would have thought that in the year 2015 women would be subject to segregation and Oxford would ban Homer.

    Goodnight.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,384
    edited January 2015
    Can't AL Murray be in the debates. :(
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    Blimey:

    Top publisher bans mentions of pork or pigs in schoolbooks 'so as not to offend Muslims or Jews'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

    When I first saw this (was Daily Mail story), I thought yeah yeah Daily Mail...but when you read this was revealed because BBC host's wife wrote a kids book and was told this in a letter in regards to their policies for content of such books.

    Utter and total nonsense, unlike the cartoon issue, it is typical "we are offended on behalf of various groups, despite having not consulted if they would be offended or received any complaints".

    The idiots at the publishers might just take a moment and think has the BBC been under constant threat by radical Jews and Muslims over showing Peppa Pig? No, I wonder why that might be?
    This is precisely the sort of dumbass shit that CAUSES islamophopia/anti-semitism.
    It's not dumb from a business perspective.

    The fact that OUP sells to 150+ countries is great news for UK PLC. If they want to cut costs by producing single versions of textbooks which can be sold in multiple markets, then this is the sort of thing that is going to happen. If UK teachers want to pay more for a specific UK version, including all manner of pork products then so be it. Of course then they'll get lambasted by the daily mail for wasting money....

    The story here is about the globalization of education, censored pork products are very much a footnote in that story.
    Not just education but culture generally. Liberals are somewhat dismayed by how Hollywood is becoming more culturally conservative as it focuses more on the growing international market.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,237


    'We must close the university gap' - even if it means weaponising education...

    I really wish people would stop using this horrible word "weaponising"

    or at least spell it correctly, "weaponizing"

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    kle4 Maybe, but there is nothing really that admirable or clever in my view in drawing a cartoon mocking Muhammad just for the sake of it to make a stand when it has little really to say beyond that
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited January 2015

    Uh, is Murray really likely to take more votes from UKIP than the other parties?

    No.
    His effort of course is to satirise Farage. He may not be interested in votes for himself. If he is successful in targeting some inner truth this may embarrass people who are thinking of voting for him. But will enough people even notice?
    Farage may be beyond parody but he is not beyond satire. We will see how good Al is. Neither Al or St Nigel are the important people here, its Big Mo.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    Blimey:

    Top publisher bans mentions of pork or pigs in schoolbooks 'so as not to offend Muslims or Jews'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

    When I first saw this (was Daily Mail story), I thought yeah yeah Daily Mail...but when you read this was revealed because BBC host's wife wrote a kids book and was told this in a letter in regards to their policies for content of such books.

    Utter and total nonsense, unlike the cartoon issue, it is typical "we are offended on behalf of various groups, despite having not consulted if they would be offended or received any complaints".

    The idiots at the publishers might just take a moment and think has the BBC been under constant threat by radical Jews and Muslims over showing Peppa Pig? No, I wonder why that might be?
    This is precisely the sort of dumbass shit that CAUSES islamophopia/anti-semitism.
    It's not dumb from a business perspective.

    The fact that OUP sells to 150+ countries is great news for UK PLC. If they want to cut costs by producing single versions of textbooks which can be sold in multiple markets, then this is the sort of thing that is going to happen. If UK teachers want to pay more for a specific UK version, including all manner of pork products then so be it. Of course then they'll get lambasted by the daily mail for wasting money....

    The story here is about the globalization of education, censored pork products are very much a footnote in that story.
    Not just education but culture generally. Liberals are somewhat dismayed by how Hollywood is becoming more culturally conservative as it focuses more on the growing international market.
    Hollywood's shoe-horning Chinese scenes into major movies is getting pretty tiring.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    Blimey:

    Top publisher bans mentions of pork or pigs in schoolbooks 'so as not to offend Muslims or Jews'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

    When I first saw this (was Daily Mail story), I thought yeah yeah Daily Mail...but when you read this was revealed because BBC host's wife wrote a kids book and was told this in a letter in regards to their policies for content of such books.


    The idiots at the publishers might just take a moment and think has the BBC been under constant threat by radical Jews and Muslims over showing Peppa Pig? No, I wonder why that might be?
    This is precisely the sort of dumbass shit that CAUSES islamophopia/anti-semitism.
    It's not dumb from a business perspective.

    The fact that OUP sells to 150+ countries is great news for UK PLC. If they want to cut costs by producing single versions of textbooks which can be sold in multiple markets, then this is the sort of thing that is going to happen. If UK teachers want to pay more for a specific UK version, including all manner of pork products then so be it. Of course then they'll get lambasted by the daily mail for wasting money....

    The story here is about the globalization of education, censored pork products are very much a footnote in that story.
    The Guardian explains it more fully:

    the guidelines were “across the board” from ELT publishers who export textbooks, not just from OUP. “I’ve never heard of an ELT publisher who didn’t do this, and I don’t see it changing,” she said. “It’s a global idea of political correctness, but I suppose the severest restraints are because the Middle East is a big market. And it’s about the ministries of education in these countries, rather than individuals. In countries like Saudi Arabia, they approve books going into schools, and are quite strict.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/14/pigs-textbooks-oup-authors-pork-guidelines

    But I don't see why non-ELT books should have the same strictures imposed......

    An even bigger issue in my view is teaching of history - not here - but in the US, where, for similar reasons to the ELT ones, 'Texas standards' are effectively imposed nation-wide....

    The Texas State Board of Education, whose decisions can have national ramifications, on Friday approved nearly 100 textbooks despite criticism the books exaggerated the influence biblical figures had in forming the U.S. system of government.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-usa-texas-textbooks-idUSKCN0J51NU20141121

    But that's Christians for you......
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    edited January 2015
    Chris_A said:


    'We must close the university gap' - even if it means weaponising education...

    I really wish people would stop using this horrible word "weaponising"

    or at least spell it correctly, "weaponizing"

    It is not a 'horrible' word it is a Miliband word.

    z looks such a horrible letter even when it is in the right. And yes, we should always try to be right. If we fail we are only human.
    http://www.metadyne.co.uk/ize.html
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Danny565 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Conservatives select their candidates for the Liverpool constituencies:

    http://www.liverpoolconservatives.org/news/liverpool-conservatives-select-parliamentary-candidates

    To think that the Tories held two seats in Liverpool barely 30 years ago...
    Until 1964 the Tories held a majority of the Liverpool seats!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    A very serious article on how Cameron's latest proposals could pose a very real threat to the UK's developing IT sector:

    http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

    That article is completely correct in what it states.

    Even the Guardian has figured it out

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror
    Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue
    Another Cameron lie, surely not... No ifs, No buts
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Chris_A said:


    'We must close the university gap' - even if it means weaponising education...

    I really wish people would stop using this horrible word "weaponising"

    or at least spell it correctly, "weaponizing"

    Many verbs that end in -ize can also end in -ise: both endings are correct in British English

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/ize-ise-or-yse
  • Chris_A said:


    'We must close the university gap' - even if it means weaponising education...

    I really wish people would stop using this horrible word "weaponising"

    or at least spell it correctly, "weaponizing"

    Both spellings are correct.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    Blimey:

    Top publisher bans mentions of pork or pigs in schoolbooks 'so as not to offend Muslims or Jews'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

    When I first saw this (was Daily Mail story), I thought yeah yeah Daily Mail...but when you read this was revealed because BBC host's wife wrote a kids book and was told this in a letter in regards to their policies for content of such books.

    Utter and total nonsense, unlike the cartoon issue, it is typical "we are offended on behalf of various groups, despite having not consulted if they would be offended or received any complaints".

    The idiots at the publishers might just take a moment and think has the BBC been under constant threat by radical Jews and Muslims over showing Peppa Pig? No, I wonder why that might be?
    This is precisely the sort of dumbass shit that CAUSES islamophopia/anti-semitism.
    But it's ok to offend Hindus by having books with cows?

    Bonkers......
    Offend? Au contraire! Difference is that Cows are sacred to Hindus...
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596



    It is not a 'horrible' word it is a Miliband word.

    z looks such a horrible letter even when it is in the right. And yes, we should always try to be right. If we fail we are only human.
    http://www.metadyne.co.uk/ize.html

    The venn diagram with the circles "Miliband language" and "horrible language" has quite a large region of intercept.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Indigo said:

    Socrates said:

    A very serious article on how Cameron's latest proposals could pose a very real threat to the UK's developing IT sector:

    http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

    That article is completely correct in what it states.

    Even the Guardian has figured it out

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror
    Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue
    Another Cameron lie, surely not... No ifs, No buts

    I read in the Standard (I think) earlier that Cameron said he'd make it a requirement for a coalition agreement. The man's mental.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    Indigo said:

    Socrates said:

    A very serious article on how Cameron's latest proposals could pose a very real threat to the UK's developing IT sector:

    http://boingboing.net/2015/01/13/what-david-cameron-just-propos.html

    That article is completely correct in what it states.

    Even the Guardian has figured it out

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror
    Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue
    Another Cameron lie, surely not... No ifs, No buts
    I read in the Standard (I think) earlier that Cameron said he'd make it a requirement for a coalition agreement. The man's mental.I'm not sure whether politicians in general (Labour were as bad) don't get the 'inter web', or just fall for any old guff the security services and GCHQ come up with.....
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited January 2015
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Pong said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    Blimey:

    Top publisher bans mentions of pork or pigs in schoolbooks 'so as not to offend Muslims or Jews'

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/top-publisher-bans-mentions-of-pigs-or-pork-so-as-not-to-offend-muslims-or-jews-9976568.html

    When I first saw this (was Daily Mail story), I thought yeah yeah Daily Mail...but when you read this was revealed because BBC host's wife wrote a kids book and was told this in a letter in regards to their policies for content of such books.

    Utter and total nonsense, unlike the cartoon issue, it is typical "we are offended on behalf of various groups, despite having not consulted if they would be offended or received any complaints".

    The idiots at the publishers might just take a moment and think has the BBC been under constant threat by radical Jews and Muslims over showing Peppa Pig? No, I wonder why that might be?
    This is precisely the sort of dumbass shit that CAUSES islamophopia/anti-semitism.
    It's not dumb from a business perspective.

    The fact that OUP sells to 150+ countries is great news for UK PLC. If they want to cut costs by producing single versions of textbooks which can be sold in multiple markets, then this is the sort of thing that is going to happen. If UK teachers want to pay more for a specific UK version, including all manner of pork products then so be it. Of course then they'll get lambasted by the daily mail for wasting money....

    The story here is about the globalization of education, censored pork products are very much a footnote in that story.
    Yeah but why bother reading the WHOLE article when the headline is such a good "political correctness gone mad" story?
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Indigo

    'Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue'

    You really believe that there will be no differentiation between encryption used by online shopping,banking etc and other users, or is it just want you want to believe?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    john_zims said:

    @Indigo

    'Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue'

    You really believe that there will be no differentiation between encryption used by online shopping,banking etc and other users, or is it just want you want to believe?

    Oh, okay, so it's fine that any script kiddie with 5 minutes and a program they found on google can read all my unencrypted passwords, emails, instant messages, and everything else, just as long as they can't see my Amazon shopping cart?

    Just better hope I never forget my password, since it'll now be impossible to safely use any "recover password" feature based on email.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    I doubt, by the way, that once Cameron turns this into concrete proposals, they'll be banning encryption. Much more likely they'll be about messenger services storing messages and having some sort of mechanism for providing them to the authorities. It's just that he understands so little about this that he has no idea how to accurately describe it.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    john_zims said:

    @Indigo

    'Online shopping, banking and messaging all use encryption. Cameron either knows his anti-terror talk is unworkable and is looking for headlines, or he hasn’t got a clue'

    You really believe that there will be no differentiation between encryption used by online shopping,banking etc and other users, or is it just want you want to believe?

    I am a professional programmer that used to work in security for a major IT consultancy, I am not completely up to date, but I know what I am talking about.

    You can't differentiate them, you either have encryption or you dont. Once its encrypted how does anyone know what it is, its just a packet of information floating through the ether. You can't tell by inspection if its part of an amazon shopping cart, part of a terrorist plan or part of a recipe for potato chips without breaking the encryption which is an enormously time consuming and expensive operation.

    TLS like you use to connection to Amazon, with a 256 bit standard key is effectively unbreakable
    AES permits the use of 256-bit keys. Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2128 times more computational power than a 128-bit key. 50 supercomputers that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second (if such a device could ever be made) would, in theory, require about 3×1051 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.
    That is exactly the same protocol used to connect to Gmail and Facebook. Even then most places that want to to be really secure like a lot of online banking dont trust it, because its possible to piggy-in-the-middle, so they use end-to-end encryption from your browser to their servers, layered on top of TLS.

    It pretty much impossible to tell from inspection if a block of data even is encrypted, or its just white noise and random numbers.

    Its even completely possible to be incredibly confidential without using encryption just being using a MAC (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Chaffing.txt), and no government is ever going to suggest you handing over authentication keys, because that immediately allows you to claim anything they might have collected against you is forged and they can't prove otherwise.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    I doubt, by the way, that once Cameron turns this into concrete proposals, they'll be banning encryption. Much more likely they'll be about messenger services storing messages and having some sort of mechanism for providing them to the authorities. It's just that he understands so little about this that he has no idea how to accurately describe it.

    Even that is doubtful, most of the modern chat services are encrypted on the device, and decrypted on the target device. OTR like used in WhatsApp and SnapChat uses a key-exchange to generate a session key to encrypt the messages between the parties, at the end of the session the session key is discarded, even if the account is compromised after the event none of the stored messages can be read, aka Perfect Forward Secrecy.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910766/Crack-internet-giants-PM-tell-Obama-insists-Google-Facebook-moral-duty-spot-suspicious-posts.html

    What is he on ? Twitter gets half a BILLION tweets sent every day. Exactly how is Twitter supposed to check those from extremist content and spot suspicious posts ? Facebook messenger handles ONE BILLION messages every day, and 350 million photos are uploaded every day. Its idiocy of the first order.

    Has he asked BT to listen to all the telephone conversations and report any that might be suspicious ?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    I doubt, by the way, that once Cameron turns this into concrete proposals, they'll be banning encryption. Much more likely they'll be about messenger services storing messages and having some sort of mechanism for providing them to the authorities. It's just that he understands so little about this that he has no idea how to accurately describe it.

    More likely the whole thing is bullshit, and the aim is to make whatever they really want sound reasonable and moderate. Say what you like about George Osborne, he's not just going to sit back and let Cameron and May blunder around pointlessly banning things while Britain's tech sector decamps to Berlin.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,037
    Indigo said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910766/Crack-internet-giants-PM-tell-Obama-insists-Google-Facebook-moral-duty-spot-suspicious-posts.html

    What is he on ? Twitter gets half a BILLION tweets sent every day. Exactly how is Twitter supposed to check those from extremist content and spot suspicious posts ? Facebook messenger handles ONE BILLION messages every day, and 350 million photos are uploaded every day. Its idiocy of the first order.

    Has he asked BT to listen to all the telephone conversations and report any that might be suspicious ?

    How do you think twitter copes with half a billion tweets per day? Computers! All you need is an algorithm to identify suspicious messages, and then repeated hits on a given account would warrant further investigation. You could also make it a lot easier by only screening tweets sent from computers in the UK to their servers in the US by tapping the fibre optic links.

    All these companies have procedures in place to deal with child porn through automatic identification. Every photo uploaded to Facebook is already checked using this technology for example, so similar infrastructure do exist.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    RobD said:

    All these companies have procedures in place to deal with child porn through automatic identification. Every photo uploaded to Facebook is already checked using this technology for example, so similar infrastructure do exist.

    I think you might find spotting a naughty image by referring to a database of image fingerprints is just a bit easier that parsing text and trying to understand what it means and if it matters - and that assumes the message is plain, even the most basic amateur fieldcraft uses unrelated words in place of the keywords in a sentence and aliases in the place of real people, "Fred is going to the supermarket at 10am" could mean a neighbour is going to get my shopping tomorrow morning, or it could be an instruction to a terrorist to blow up some pre designated target at that time, or some other time by way of a simple transposition.

    Even if we dont want to believe the bad guys are experts (and some of them probably are considering their apparent ability to hack even quite well protected websites) we should at least credit them with having read some Fredrick Forsyth and Le Carre ;)


  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    RobD said:

    Indigo said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2910766/Crack-internet-giants-PM-tell-Obama-insists-Google-Facebook-moral-duty-spot-suspicious-posts.html

    What is he on ? Twitter gets half a BILLION tweets sent every day. Exactly how is Twitter supposed to check those from extremist content and spot suspicious posts ? Facebook messenger handles ONE BILLION messages every day, and 350 million photos are uploaded every day. Its idiocy of the first order.

    Has he asked BT to listen to all the telephone conversations and report any that might be suspicious ?

    How do you think twitter copes with half a billion tweets per day? Computers! All you need is an algorithm to identify suspicious messages, and then repeated hits on a given account would warrant further investigation. You could also make it a lot easier by only screening tweets sent from computers in the UK to their servers in the US by tapping the fibre optic links.

    All these companies have procedures in place to deal with child porn through automatic identification. Every photo uploaded to Facebook is already checked using this technology for example, so similar infrastructure do exist.
    Twitter mainly follow up human-generated abuse report, IIUC.

    TBF there is a potential non-bonkers request that I think was what the Lee Rigby report was getting at, which would be for Facebook and Twitter to notify law enforcement of accounts they suspend for terrorism-related reasons. Although it's not obvious that this would help in any of the recent cases, which seem to involve people law enforcement already knew about, but they hadn't got around to checking up on them lately. (TBF monitoring 1000 or 10000 people 24/7 requires a hell of a lot of guys.)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The South East is traditionally one of the LDs' best regions, so it's a bit surprising the official webpage for PPCs lists just 20 candidates:

    http://www.southeastlibdems.org.uk/ppc_s_prospective_parliamentary_candidates
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,037
    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    All these companies have procedures in place to deal with child porn through automatic identification. Every photo uploaded to Facebook is already checked using this technology for example, so similar infrastructure do exist.

    I think you might find spotting a naughty image by referring to a database of image fingerprints is just a bit easier that parsing text and trying to understand what it means and if it matters - and that assumes the message is plain, even the most basic amateur fieldcraft uses unrelated words in place of the keywords in a sentence and aliases in the place of real people, "Fred is going to the supermarket at 10am" could mean a neighbour is going to get my shopping tomorrow morning, or it could be an instruction to a terrorist to blow up some pre designated target at that time, or some other time by way of a simple transposition.

    Even if we dont want to believe the bad guys are experts (and some of them probably are considering their apparent ability to hack even quite well protected websites) we should at least credit them with having read some Fredrick Forsyth and Le Carre ;)


    My point was that they already analyze the millions of images posted to FB every day, so it isn't hard to do a check of every message/picture that is posted against a set of rules/filters. Yes, it is hard to interpret meaning in messages, but given that (as edmund mentions above) the Rigby killers were banned from FB on multiple occasion, implies that some of this isn't hidden in cryptic messages.

    I don't doubt that GCHQ/NSA are paying the big $$$ to computer scientists to develop tools to automatically flag suspect messages, and wouldn't be surprised if such algorithms are already well developed and in routine usage.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Qualification on my last comment: it seems the LD definition of South East includes Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent, so it's not as large as the standard SE region.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    RobD said:

    Indigo said:

    RobD said:

    All these companies have procedures in place to deal with child porn through automatic identification. Every photo uploaded to Facebook is already checked using this technology for example, so similar infrastructure do exist.

    I think you might find spotting a naughty image by referring to a database of image fingerprints is just a bit easier that parsing text and trying to understand what it means and if it matters - and that assumes the message is plain, even the most basic amateur fieldcraft uses unrelated words in place of the keywords in a sentence and aliases in the place of real people, "Fred is going to the supermarket at 10am" could mean a neighbour is going to get my shopping tomorrow morning, or it could be an instruction to a terrorist to blow up some pre designated target at that time, or some other time by way of a simple transposition.

    Even if we dont want to believe the bad guys are experts (and some of them probably are considering their apparent ability to hack even quite well protected websites) we should at least credit them with having read some Fredrick Forsyth and Le Carre ;)


    My point was that they already analyze the millions of images posted to FB every day, so it isn't hard to do a check of every message/picture that is posted against a set of rules/filters. Yes, it is hard to interpret meaning in messages, but given that (as edmund mentions above) the Rigby killers were banned from FB on multiple occasion, implies that some of this isn't hidden in cryptic messages.

    I don't doubt that GCHQ/NSA are paying the big $$$ to computer scientists to develop tools to automatically flag suspect messages, and wouldn't be surprised if such algorithms are already well developed and in routine usage.
    The report wouldn't say whether it was FB or what (I guessed YouTube) but again, this is probably processing of human-generated abuse reports rather than some whizzy uber-algorithm.

    Of course the intelligence services are free to run whatever algorithms they like on this stuff, but if you read the report about what happened in practice it sounds like they'd do better taking the time to check behind their own radiators for reports they'd forgotten to process...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Remember Labour's 'Energy Price Freeze' that was really a 'cap' - well, 'cap's seem to be (full fat) flavour of the month, with 'cap's on fat, sugar and salt in food marketed to children:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30817300

    I wonder how a portion of Fish & Chips would fare?

    Will it be illegal to sell Fish & Chips to children?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Apols if posted before, but another day, another poll where UKIP voters stand apart:

    What % of the UK population is Muslim (mean):
    Con: 15
    Lab: 17
    LibD: 15
    UKIP: 21 - 22% thought it was 30% or more. - in 2011 census, 4.6%

    Should ordinary muslims apologise for terrorist attacks "in the name of Islam' - net agree:
    Con: -36
    Lab: -45
    LibD: -49
    UKIP: +15

    Which is funny.....given their views on Jews are so similar to Muslims.....
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015


    I don't doubt that GCHQ/NSA are paying the big $$$ to computer scientists to develop tools to automatically flag suspect messages, and wouldn't be surprised if such algorithms are already well developed and in routine usage.

    In any case that wasn't the point. Cameron wasn't asking the intelligence agencies to do it (which I would hope they do), he was asking Facebook, Twitter and Google to do it (which is odd, verging on bullshit, because if the intelligence agencies do it, he doesn't need Twitter, Facebook and Google to do it)

    Of course the intelligence services are free to run whatever algorithms they like on this stuff, but if you read the report about what happened in practice it sounds like they'd do better taking the time to check behind their own radiators for reports they'd forgotten to process...

    Well quite, or instead of spending billions on storage media to store endless pictures of teenagers genitals that they message each other, and not actually stop terrorists encrypting anything, they could arrange to be able to track more than 50 people at once (see the Lee Rigby Report)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Apols if posted before, but another day, another poll where UKIP voters stand apart:

    What % of the UK population is Muslim (mean):
    Con: 15
    Lab: 17
    LibD: 15
    UKIP: 21 - 22% thought it was 30% or more. - in 2011 census, 4.6%

    Should ordinary muslims apologise for terrorist attacks "in the name of Islam' - net agree:
    Con: -36
    Lab: -45
    LibD: -49
    UKIP: +15

    Which is funny.....given their views on Jews are so similar to Muslims.....

    Surely the funny thing is if kipper attitudes to Jews and gays are the same as muslim ones, why does Dave want to win lots more BME votes from among muslims ?

    Why do you scapegoat christian people with let's say "traditional attitudes" but seek out muslims with the self same view ? Funny - if not hypocritical.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Behold, he bares his arse and words come out.

    Another totally missable forecast from Osborne. Prat.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11346477/George-Osborne-suggests-Britain-will-be-richer-than-America-in-15-years.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,346
    Speedy said:

    AndyJS said:

    Maybe, although Orkney & Shetland is usually regarded as LD stronghold number one.

    Speedy said:

    AndyJS said:

    James Kelly blogpost — "Is Charles Kennedy heading for defeat at the hands of the SNP?"

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/is-charles-kennedy-heading-for-defeat.html

    I'm quite sure that Kennedy is the only LD in the whole country who can keep his head high, so the answer is no.
    Well the Orkneys & Shetlands are culturally different than the rest of scotland.
    Ironically for the SNP they actually want independence from scotland because they think that Holyrood isn't representing their interests and want to keep the oil for themselves.
    Polling data, please? I'e seen the complete opposite. (Not what the local LD MP and MSP say.)

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,908
    Will Murray be competing in character?

    The result we need:Farage victory by smaller number of votes than obtained by Murray.
This discussion has been closed.