Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
PS. I’m now off to the pub. That’s not been automated. See you all later
It kind of has. Why are pubs declining? Because more and more people drink at home - because it's cheaper, and you don't have to interrupt your Facebook session. So are corner shops booming? No, because they're undercut by supermarkets. So are there lots more supermarket staff? No, because most people go for the self-service tills.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
On the topic of Facebook I'll never understand why people are prepared to give away so many details about their lives online when if you walked up to them in the street and asked for the same information they would never give it to you.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
PS. I’m now off to the pub. That’s not been automated. See you all later
It kind of has. Why are pubs declining? Because more and more people drink at home - because it's cheaper, and you don't have to interrupt your Facebook session. So are corner shops booming? No, because they're undercut by supermarkets. So are there lots more supermarket staff? No, because most people go for the self-service tills.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
If I am honest, if Smith had been caught tampering with the ball on a low level and ineffectually like this, I would have laughed at his embarrassment, seen him serve a one match ban and fine, and been happy to think he could return to captain Aus. Let's face it, in terms of seriousness this sort of thing isn't much different from not walking, or claiming to have hit the ball when given LBW, both of which are very common.
What I think is a resigning matter is that he forced another player to do it in the apparent hope of escaping notice. Moreover, the most junior player, and the one whose place is least secure and could therefore not afford to say no. That is bullying and that takes it to a different level from Atherton, du Plessis or even Afridi.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
Ah, you considered a career in the City?
There are many good, well paid jobs where an academic qualification is meaningless in the context of doing that job well. Cheating in that context may be considered a skill,
Interim captain Tim Paine apologising to the fans. Is he in the leadership group I wonder?
Apparently not. The 'leadership group' appears to be a clique of Smith's cronies. Paine was only recalled recently and as he is older is an outsider who wasn't wholly welcome.
I'm assuming Warner will be dropped too. Will be interesting to see what happens to Starc, Lyon and Hazlewood.
I think Paine probably is the one who will continue as captain for now, if only because the only realistic alternative is Mitchell Marsh who is very inexperienced by comparison.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
If I am honest, if Smith had been caught tampering with the ball on a low level and ineffectually like this, I would have laughed at his embarrassment, seen him serve a one match ban and fine, and been happy to think he could return to captain Aus. Let's face it, in terms of seriousness this sort of thing isn't much different from not walking, or claiming to have hit the ball when given LBW, both of which are very common.
What I think is a resigning matter is that he forced another player to do it in the apparent hope of escaping notice. Moreover, the most junior player, and the one whose place is least secure and could therefore not afford to say no. That is bullying and that takes it to a different level from Atherton, du Plessis or even Afridi.
It's that, and the premeditation. People being caught doing or attempting this sort of thing could claim a moment of madness, however wrong they knew it to be. Under Smith the aussies sat together in a group and decided what way they could outright cheat. As he put it himself, they decided it was an opportunity to gain an advantage. Then they picked out a patsy to do it. It's not a mere bad apple, there's a problem with the orchard.
On the topic of Facebook I'll never understand why people are prepared to give away so many details about their lives online when if you walked up to them in the street and asked for the same information they would never give it to you.
Facebook offers them something in return - publicity?
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
What puzzles me is the outrage voiced by many Strines, as if cheating is alien to their culture.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
What puzzles me is the outrage voiced by many Strines, as if cheating is alien to their culture.
Strines?
As for any outrage, we'd all like to think our guys and gals wouldn't cheat, even if we think others do. How many of our great cyclists will end up tarnished for example?
Interim captain Tim Paine apologising to the fans. Is he in the leadership group I wonder?
Apparently not. The 'leadership group' appears to be a clique of Smith's cronies. Paine was only recalled recently and as he is older is an outsider who wasn't wholly welcome.
I'm assuming Warner will be dropped too. Will be interesting to see what happens to Starc, Lyon and Hazlewood.
I think Paine probably is the one who will continue as captain for now, if only because the only realistic alternative is Mitchell Marsh who is very inexperienced by comparison.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
If I am honest, if Smith had been caught tampering with the ball on a low level and ineffectually like this, I would have laughed at his embarrassment, seen him serve a one match ban and fine, and been happy to think he could return to captain Aus. Let's face it, in terms of seriousness this sort of thing isn't much different from not walking, or claiming to have hit the ball when given LBW, both of which are very common.
What I think is a resigning matter is that he forced another player to do it in the apparent hope of escaping notice. Moreover, the most junior player, and the one whose place is least secure and could therefore not afford to say no. That is bullying and that takes it to a different level from Atherton, du Plessis or even Afridi.
It's that, and the premeditation. People being caught doing or attempting this sort of thing could claim a moment of madness, however wrong they knew it to be. Under Smith the aussies sat together in a group and decided what way they could outright cheat. As he put it himself, they decided it was an opportunity to gain an advantage. Then they picked out a patsy to do it. It's not a mere bad apple, there's a problem with the orchard.
Absolutely, which is why this up there with the Pakistani no-balling or drugs test failures. It’s an organised effort to deliberately operate outside what they knew to be the rules.
It’s not like an F1 team hoping to have the technical regulations interpreted a certain way, it’s out and out cheating from the convicts.
It's that, and the premeditation. People being caught doing or attempting this sort of thing could claim a moment of madness, however wrong they knew it to be. Under Smith the aussies sat together in a group and decided what way they could outright cheat. As he put it himself, they decided it was an opportunity to gain an advantage. Then they picked out a patsy to do it. It's not a mere bad apple, there's a problem with the orchard.
Almost all ball tampering is premeditated. Trescothick and du Plessis didn't just happen to have the right mints in their mouths, did they? Or Atherton find soil miraculously appearing in his pockets?
No, it's the way he didn't have the balls (no pun intended, for once) to do it himself that tells me Smith is not fit to be leader.
Many years ago the ECB drew up a fascinating report on ball tampering largely written by former Gloucestershire stalwart and one-Test wonder Mike Smith. Some information here:
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Smith is the best batsman in the world, but cannot win every game for his team. Apparently not knowing if he was done under their own skill or not was not important as the winning.
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
What puzzles me is the outrage voiced by many Strines, as if cheating is alien to their culture.
Strines?
As for any outrage, we'd all like to think our guys and gals wouldn't cheat, even if we think others do. How many of our great cyclists will end up tarnished for example?
I worked for ANZ for a while - full of Strines speaking Strine.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Good evening, everyone.
It'd be interesting to know (not that cheats would necessarily tell the truth), but I can see several potential factors for sports cheats:
*) Some people will do anything to *win*. Whether in business or sports. They are, I think, a minority.
*) A match is not just a few hours or days. Often it is the result of dedicating yourself to your sport from before your early teens; turning up on wet weekends to play; your family having to drive you to competitions all over the country, and then the endless hours of training and practice. They tell themselves that they deserve success for the sacrifice.
*) The reward for cheating (if not caught) can be very high, and sometimes enough to turn even a generally honest person.
*) Many sportsmen have short careers, and if they don't make a name for themselves that they can use later, or earn a lot of money in the meantime, they'll be stacking shelves at Tescos.
*) Some sports (cycling is one) have cheating so endemic that the pressure to cheat must be immense - the only way you can compete with the other cheats is to cheat yourself.
Why - if machines are so much more productive than horses - should we worry about the plight of horses? They lost the "survival of the fittest battle". And if robots are better than us, why should we hold them back. Better we recognise that we simply aren't as good as them, and accept our new subservient position now.
Why - if machines are so much more productive than horses - should we worry about the plight of horses? They lost the "survival of the fittest battle". And if robots are better than us, why should we hold them back. Better we recognise that we simply aren't as good as them, and accept our new subservient position now.
Well, just so long as we don't create a Skynet, that'll be fine.
Why - if machines are so much more productive than horses - should we worry about the plight of horses? They lost the "survival of the fittest battle". And if robots are better than us, why should we hold them back. Better we recognise that we simply aren't as good as them, and accept our new subservient position now.
Well, just so long as we don't create a Skynet, that'll be fine.
It's important to stress that this is the metadata, rather than the actual contents of the call and messages. That's bad enough, but they're not listening in to your conversations.
I'm unsure how it can be argued that granting access to your contacts also allows them to access logs as well.
It's important to stress that this is the metadata, rather than the actual contents of the call and messages. That's bad enough, but they're not listening in to your conversations.
I'm unsure how it can be argued that granting access to your contacts also allows them to access logs as well.
It sounds like an Android permissions f-up which Facebook ruthlessly exploited until it was closed down last year. Yes, the call and message logs rather than call recordings or message contents.
The one thing I like about Apple is that they treat you as their customer, they make their money by selling hardware and services rather than by selling personal data on their users.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
If we don't care about rules then we should get rid of them, not ignore them. If the rules themselves then they should be changed, not ignored.
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
You've missed out the ongoing saga that Corbyn endorses antisemitism and is governing Labour via a clique of third rate nobodies.
Of course there are those posters who think these are nothing to get worked up about either.
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
At least they are trying to win? That's hardly an excuse for cheating.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
advertisers may go away for a while but most facebook users couldn't care less or at least enough to stop using it
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
I don't think Facebook actually did the deed vis-a-vis elections, it facilitated it - wittingly or unwittingly seems to be the issue. How Facebook makes its money is now in focus. Its shares have taken a big hit and I think it faces an existential risk because that is now front and centre.
anyway the game of test cricket especially would benefit from giving a bit more help to the bowler
While that is possibly true, that the cheaters themselves have not tried to use that one in their defence shows that it is irrelevant to this incident. The South African bowlers seemed to get by just fine. It is not up to individuals or teams to decide they don't like the rules and so to break them.
2 things happening at the moment I cannot get worked up about - ball tampering (at least they are trying to win unlike some other teams and i actually think its less of a crime than broad not walking when clearly caught in the ashes ) and facebook data issues - i mean people trying to influence elections ! wow how outrageous - are we really that paranoid about it?
Agreed. If you want to worry about Big Data, facebook is not the place to start. It is surely much more frightening that if you have a Clubcard, Tesco knows exactly how many tubes of piles ointment and sachets of Angels Delight you have bought in the last 20 years, and your ISP knows everything you have ever googled; facebook only knows stuff which you don't mind your 300 closest friends knowing. And, yes, targeted messages to key demographics is not anything new, and the fuss about evil new technology puts one in mind of the Peoples Front of Uruk contesting the 3500 BC election result on the grounds that Gilgamesh was using this newfangled writing malarkey to get his message across, the total cun_.*
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
advertisers may go away for a while but most facebook users couldn't care less or at least enough to stop using it
'Most' Facebook user might not care, but it does not have to be 'most'. The same network effects that enabled their rapid growth could happen in reverse. We've already seen Musk pull Tesla and SpaceX's pages from FB (not something I agree with). And we saw how Snap had problems with Kylie Jenner.
I think people only manage one social network well; they won't want to be on Facebook and Myspace for everyday use. If the network has another purpose - for instance Twitter - fair enough. But Twitter does not fulfil FB's rule.
If enough celebs move elsewhere, their fans will follow. And if enough of them follow, their friends and family will as well (or leave social networks altogether). If the end comes, it may come very fast.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
All that’s changed in the last couple of weeks is public awareness of what these companies do and how they operate. Facebook are desperate to make this a CA problem, but there’s a dozen more slightly less well known CAs out there, giving Facebook billions of dollars a year for your data.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
All that’s changed in the last couple of weeks is public awareness of what these companies do and how they operate. Facebook are desperate to make this a CA problem, but there’s a dozen more slightly less well known CAs out there, giving Facebook billions of dollars a year for your data.
I think Cricket Australia have enough problems right now without adding Facebook's!
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
All that’s changed in the last couple of weeks is public awareness of what these companies do and how they operate. Facebook are desperate to make this a CA problem, but there’s a dozen more slightly less well known CAs out there, giving Facebook billions of dollars a year for your data.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
Hmm, is there any model like that closer to home? possibly
I have a FB profile and do not plan to delete it, but am careful of my settings and what I post. At the moment my Med School Reunion is being planned there, so it does have its uses.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
advertisers may go away for a while but most facebook users couldn't care less or at least enough to stop using it
Its more like : remain enthusiasts will quit facebook and stop spamming peoples timeline with their misinformation and whining about brexit.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
Hmm, is there any model like that closer to home? possibly
I have a FB profile and do not plan to delete it, but am careful of my settings and what I post. At the moment my Med School Reunion is being planned there, so it does have its uses.
An issue is that you *think* you are being careful with your settings. Until recently (and perhaps even now), the settings were such that you could think you were being careful when you were not.
And there was a good reason for that: Facebook needed that data, so it was in their interests to make it difficult for the user to prevent it.
Year of GE Market - 2018 has been drifting over last couple of days - last matched at 8.6 - longest ever price (excluding tiny error trades).
I see it reported today that EU Council will be on 19th Oct so no way deal done before then.
If deal is done on 19th Oct then by time it gets to vote in Parliament (*) even if voted down there wouldn't be time for a GE before Christmas.
(*) Also reported vote in Parliament likely won't be until after OBR has done full forecast on the deal which itself will take several weeks - ie OBR forecast unlikely to be done before late Nov.
And if deal not done at EU Council on 19th Oct then presumably negotiations would continue until a later emergency summit - which just moves whole process back even further.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
Facebook provide a useful communication platform. It's free so people are, I believe, OK with it being supported by advertising. They're probably mostly OK with a degree of targeting on an opt in basis. What they are not ok with, once they are aware of the situation, is Facebook analysing their every communication and associating them with people they don't even know, and then monetizing it. They aren't chatting to their mums on a Saturday evening to have their privacy grossly subverted. No-one knows what Facebook does with their data. Their modes of operation and terms of conditions keep changing. I do think Facebook is the worst offender of the big platforms. Instagram and Twitter are probably OK. Google is borderline and LinkedIn is dodgy but at least there is a quid pro quo in terms of job opportunities.
Bottom line social media companies need to explain exactly what they do with user data in simple and easy to understand terms and users need to opt in to each such use. Facebook can still be a profitable company. Not quite as mega though. IMO
PS. I’m now off to the pub. That’s not been automated. See you all later
It kind of has. Why are pubs declining? Because more and more people drink at home - because it's cheaper, and you don't have to interrupt your Facebook session. So are corner shops booming? No, because they're undercut by supermarkets. So are there lots more supermarket staff? No, because most people go for the self-service tills.
Now back, fed and watered. i‘m not interested in drinking beer at home because in the pub I meet all sorts of people, some interesting, some admittedly less so. And I’d rather chat face to face than on Facebook. Difficult to have the snap back and fro banter on Facebook. Or even PB.
It's possible that this is just the start of the revelations, and I'm starting to wonder if this might be an extinction-level event for Facebook as an independent company. 'Facebook' will always have a value, but the damage might mean they become predated rather than predators of other companies.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
The issue is that ‘this sh*t’ is the entire business model. Unless they’re charging you a subscription fee then you’re the product.
Hmm, is there any model like that closer to home? possibly
I have a FB profile and do not plan to delete it, but am careful of my settings and what I post. At the moment my Med School Reunion is being planned there, so it does have its uses.
An issue is that you *think* you are being careful with your settings. Until recently (and perhaps even now), the settings were such that you could think you were being careful when you were not.
And there was a good reason for that: Facebook needed that data, so it was in their interests to make it difficult for the user to prevent it.
I agree, and they do like to shift their setting to make it harder.
I think particularly out of order is sharing contact details. I can consent to my own stuff being shared, but not on behalf of others.
This is a useful little guide to turning off third party stuff:
Why - if machines are so much more productive than horses - should we worry about the plight of horses? They lost the "survival of the fittest battle". And if robots are better than us, why should we hold them back. Better we recognise that we simply aren't as good as them, and accept our new subservient position now.
Any horses I back have lost the ‘survival of the fittest’ battle. Only trouble it’s not evident early enough.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen it discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen a lot of discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
It was raised this morning on Marr and Watson gave a non-apology.
PS. I’m now off to the pub. That’s not been automated. See you all later
It kind of has. Why are pubs declining? Because more and more people drink at home - because it's cheaper, and you don't have to interrupt your Facebook session. So are corner shops booming? No, because they're undercut by supermarkets. So are there lots more supermarket staff? No, because most people go for the self-service tills.
PS. I’m now off to the pub. That’s not been automated. See you all later
It kind of has. Why are pubs declining? Because more and more people drink at home - because it's cheaper, and you don't have to interrupt your Facebook session. So are corner shops booming? No, because they're undercut by supermarkets. So are there lots more supermarket staff? No, because most people go for the self-service tills.
I thought there was more people employed in the supermarket sector?
Just how toothless is the ICC.? Just as Atherton didn't get what he deserved, so the punishment meted out by the ICC today is pathetic. Smith should get a de minimus 12 month ban from ALL forms of cricket, so should Warner, as for the younger guy, one is open to persuasion.
The punishment has to be serious enough to stop it happening. One Test isn't even a smack on the wrists.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen a lot of discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
It was raised this morning on Marr and Watson gave a non-apology.
Ah okay. No surprises there re Watson non apology as he’s been defending all things Corbyn for sometime now. It is a bit concerning though that it doesn’t (to my knowledge anyway) seem to have featured very much on the BBC News at 6 or 10. Anti-semitism in the country’s main opposition party should be one of, if not the biggest story of the day and I wonder just how many actually know about it if it’s not getting enough coverage.
So it should , government have gone well over the top and a disgrace that UK and EU have not condemned them and gave them ultimatim re democracy. Makes the Russians look like angels.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen a lot of discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
It was raised this morning on Marr and Watson gave a non-apology.
Ah okay. No surprises there re Watson non apology as he’s been defending all things Corbyn for sometime now. It is a bit concerning though that it doesn’t (to my knowledge anyway) seem to have featured very much on the BBC News at 6 or 10. Anti-semitism in the country’s main opposition party should be one of, if not the biggest story of the day and I wonder just how many actually know about it if it’s not getting enough coverage.
I do wonder how Mrs May posting in a neo-Nazi Facebook group or two and defending the removal of a Nazi mural would have been reported....
I am not sure a non-apology would have done the trick.
Just imagine how badly they would have been humiliated if they hadn't tried to cheat...why, the captain would surely have had to resign in disgrace!
I struggle to understand the mentality of cheating, in anything. The fact of winning/passing an exam/whatever obviously must outweigh the knowledge that you didn't really achieve it by your own efforts. But if you didn't do it by your own efforts, what's the point?
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Good evening, everyone.
It'd be interesting to know (not that cheats would necessarily tell the truth), but I can see several potential factors for sports cheats:
*) Some people will do anything to *win*. Whether in business or sports. They are, I think, a minority.
*) A match is not just a few hours or days. Often it is the result of dedicating yourself to your sport from before your early teens; turning up on wet weekends to play; your family having to drive you to competitions all over the country, and then the endless hours of training and practice. They tell themselves that they deserve success for the sacrifice.
*) The reward for cheating (if not caught) can be very high, and sometimes enough to turn even a generally honest person.
*) Many sportsmen have short careers, and if they don't make a name for themselves that they can use later, or earn a lot of money in the meantime, they'll be stacking shelves at Tescos.
*) Some sports (cycling is one) have cheating so endemic that the pressure to cheat must be immense - the only way you can compete with the other cheats is to cheat yourself.
And there are probably many more.
For most of them it is down to greed, they are after money.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen a lot of discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
It was raised this morning on Marr and Watson gave a non-apology.
Ah okay. No surprises there re Watson non apology as he’s been defending all things Corbyn for sometime now. It is a bit concerning though that it doesn’t (to my knowledge anyway) seem to have featured very much on the BBC News at 6 or 10. Anti-semitism in the country’s main opposition party should be one of, if not the biggest story of the day and I wonder just how many actually know about it if it’s not getting enough coverage.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Well Sqwawkbox is accusing May of "VILE RACIST TROPE AGAINST LABOUR’S JEWISH MEMBERS"....
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Well Sqwawkbox is accusing May of "VILE RACIST TROPE AGAINST LABOUR’S JEWISH MEMBERS"....
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Well Sqwawkbox is accusing May of "VILE RACIST TROPE AGAINST LABOUR’S JEWISH MEMBERS"....
Are they like the Canary?
Yes, but even more Fake News. BJO gets all his links from there.
Has mural-gate been covered on the BBC News Channel/BBC One? I’ve seen a lot of discussed on twitter, and even on the BBC News website, but it didn’t seem to feature at all on the TV news yesterday, with attention being given to Owen Smith’s sacking instead.
It was raised this morning on Marr and Watson gave a non-apology.
Ah okay. No surprises there re Watson non apology as he’s been defending all things Corbyn for sometime now. It is a bit concerning though that it doesn’t (to my knowledge anyway) seem to have featured very much on the BBC News at 6 or 10. Anti-semitism in the country’s main opposition party should be one of, if not the biggest story of the day and I wonder just how many actually know about it if it’s not getting enough coverage.
Now headlining bbc news web page.
In a previous post I did say that I’d seen it reported on the BBC News website. My main concern was its coverage on TV as many will get their news there.
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.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
It is not a proper apology. It is a classic non-apology.
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.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
It is not a proper apology. It is a classic non-apology.
He doesn't admit that he has done anything wrong.
It won't be enough
There are non-apologies and then there are non-apologies. Nobody seems to want to tear Labour apart over this or any other issue, so is his apparent shift enough. Not for external critics, and certainly not all internal ones, but the Chakrabarti report, and his comments up to now on other incidents kept people in line until now after all.
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.
Corbyn seems to have inherited Blair's teflon qualities. You can guarantee that if tomorrow's protest had been directed at the government the TV cameras would already be in place and the build-up would have started.
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.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
It is not a proper apology. It is a classic non-apology.
He doesn't admit that he has done anything wrong.
It won't be enough
There are non-apologies and then there are non-apologies. Nobody seems to want to tear Labour apart over this or any other issue, so is his apparent shift enough. Not for external critics, and certainly not all internal ones, but the Chakrabarti report, and his comments up to now on other incidents kept people in line until now after all.
I think it would need a lot more that a statement to satisfy. It needed him to have taken action in the past - which is what he has failed to do.
If he had come out and kicked Ken from the party once and for all and condemned him in absolute terms - that would have been a symbolic act that would have shown a willingness to act. But an empty statement with no personal apology is not enough.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
It is not a proper apology. It is a classic non-apology.
He doesn't admit that he has done anything wrong.
It won't be enough
There are non-apologies and then there are non-apologies. Nobody seems to want to tear Labour apart over this or any other issue, so is his apparent shift enough. Not for external critics, and certainly not all internal ones, but the Chakrabarti report, and his comments up to now on other incidents kept people in line until now after all.
If he had come out and kicked Ken from the party once and for all and condemned him in absolute terms
Corbyn seems to have inherited Blair's teflon qualities. You can guarantee that if tomorrow's protest had been directed at the government Tories the TV cameras would already be in place and the build-up would have started.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Well Sqwawkbox is accusing May of "VILE RACIST TROPE AGAINST LABOUR’S JEWISH MEMBERS"....
Are they like the Canary?
Yes, but even more Fake News. BJO gets all his links from there.
Comments
Time for Her Majesty to appoint a new Viceroy of Australia to civilise those cheating Aussies.
I could qualify for the highest-paid job in the world by copying from an answer-sheet, but it wouldn't give me the knowledge to do the job.
The only thing people achieve by cheating at sport is never to know whether they'd have won or not.
Good evening, everyone.
https://twitter.com/SunBets/status/977860157848899585
I would imagine what happened is that for a long time the team have pushed right up to the limits of the rules, as happens in many sports to seize an advantage, and mentally decided that since everyone does that, ignoring the rules altogether was not such a big step. They were, of course, wrong. All crimes are not equal.
What I think is a resigning matter is that he forced another player to do it in the apparent hope of escaping notice. Moreover, the most junior player, and the one whose place is least secure and could therefore not afford to say no. That is bullying and that takes it to a different level from Atherton, du Plessis or even Afridi.
I'm assuming Warner will be dropped too. Will be interesting to see what happens to Starc, Lyon and Hazlewood.
I think Paine probably is the one who will continue as captain for now, if only because the only realistic alternative is Mitchell Marsh who is very inexperienced by comparison.
As for any outrage, we'd all like to think our guys and gals wouldn't cheat, even if we think others do. How many of our great cyclists will end up tarnished for example?
It’s not like an F1 team hoping to have the technical regulations interpreted a certain way, it’s out and out cheating from the convicts.
No, it's the way he didn't have the balls (no pun intended, for once) to do it himself that tells me Smith is not fit to be leader.
Many years ago the ECB drew up a fascinating report on ball tampering largely written by former Gloucestershire stalwart and one-Test wonder Mike Smith. Some information here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/4488895.stm
Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, said: “It’s their [Cricket Australia’s] responsibility to deal with it, but I have to say that [to] the whole nation, who holds those who wear the Baggy Green up on a pedestal, about as high as you can get in Australia... this is a shocking disappointment”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2018/03/25/australia-has-finally-lost-faith-arrogant-cheating-cricket-team/
*) Some people will do anything to *win*. Whether in business or sports. They are, I think, a minority.
*) A match is not just a few hours or days. Often it is the result of dedicating yourself to your sport from before your early teens; turning up on wet weekends to play; your family having to drive you to competitions all over the country, and then the endless hours of training and practice. They tell themselves that they deserve success for the sacrifice.
*) The reward for cheating (if not caught) can be very high, and sometimes enough to turn even a generally honest person.
*) Many sportsmen have short careers, and if they don't make a name for themselves that they can use later, or earn a lot of money in the meantime, they'll be stacking shelves at Tescos.
*) Some sports (cycling is one) have cheating so endemic that the pressure to cheat must be immense - the only way you can compete with the other cheats is to cheat yourself.
And there are probably many more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellite)
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/03/25/056246/facebook-scraped-call-text-message-data-for-years-from-android-phones
I'm unsure how it can be argued that granting access to your contacts also allows them to access logs as well.
The one thing I like about Apple is that they treat you as their customer, they make their money by selling hardware and services rather than by selling personal data on their users.
They won't be the only offenders, and I doubt they're the worst. But the fact that they're the first to get caught out, and are so big, makes it difficult for them.
The question comes how deep the brand loyalty to them is. I only use FB to keep in contact with a few family and friends; if and when most of those move onto another network, I will as well.
Their fall may be quicker than their rise.
On the other hand, what alternatives are there that we can guarantee didn't do this sh*t?
Of course there are those posters who think these are nothing to get worked up about either.
https://order-order.com/2018/03/25/jewish-groups-dub-labour-racist-party-plan-parliament-protest-call-national-demonstration/
*cuneiform scribe, what did you think I meant?
I think people only manage one social network well; they won't want to be on Facebook and Myspace for everyday use. If the network has another purpose - for instance Twitter - fair enough. But Twitter does not fulfil FB's rule.
If enough celebs move elsewhere, their fans will follow. And if enough of them follow, their friends and family will as well (or leave social networks altogether). If the end comes, it may come very fast.
All that’s changed in the last couple of weeks is public awareness of what these companies do and how they operate. Facebook are desperate to make this a CA problem, but there’s a dozen more slightly less well known CAs out there, giving Facebook billions of dollars a year for your data.
I have a FB profile and do not plan to delete it, but am careful of my settings and what I post. At the moment my Med School Reunion is being planned there, so it does have its uses.
And there was a good reason for that: Facebook needed that data, so it was in their interests to make it difficult for the user to prevent it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlLqvFfw9ig
I see it reported today that EU Council will be on 19th Oct so no way deal done before then.
If deal is done on 19th Oct then by time it gets to vote in Parliament (*) even if voted down there wouldn't be time for a GE before Christmas.
(*) Also reported vote in Parliament likely won't be until after OBR has done full forecast on the deal which itself will take several weeks - ie OBR forecast unlikely to be done before late Nov.
And if deal not done at EU Council on 19th Oct then presumably negotiations would continue until a later emergency summit - which just moves whole process back even further.
Bottom line social media companies need to explain exactly what they do with user data in simple and easy to understand terms and users need to opt in to each such use. Facebook can still be a profitable company. Not quite as mega though. IMO
Difficult to have the snap back and fro banter on Facebook. Or even PB.
I think particularly out of order is sharing contact details. I can consent to my own stuff being shared, but not on behalf of others.
This is a useful little guide to turning off third party stuff:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-change-your-facebook-settings-opt-out-platform-api-sharing
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/977963655219286017
Just how toothless is the ICC.? Just as Atherton didn't get what he deserved, so the punishment meted out by the ICC today is pathetic. Smith should get a de minimus 12 month ban from ALL forms of cricket, so should Warner, as for the younger guy, one is open to persuasion.
The punishment has to be serious enough to stop it happening. One Test isn't even a smack on the wrists.
Mars is set to make Maltesers the shape of FLAT buttons in a bid to ‘fight falling sales’
Time to grab the pitchfork....
I am not sure a non-apology would have done the trick.
Well, at least this means any Corbyn loyalists seeking to dismiss claims of there being any anti-semitism in the party can be dismissed even quicker than before, now that Corbyn has actually apologised for its existence.
I am actually surprised that this latest mess has convinced his spinners to convince him to issue such a statement, given how many opportunities there would have been to be so unequivocal.
Given there were only rumblings before, presumably this should be enough to quell most of the MPs.
He doesn't admit that he has done anything wrong.
It won't be enough
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.
If he had come out and kicked Ken from the party once and for all and condemned him in absolute terms - that would have been a symbolic act that would have shown a willingness to act. But an empty statement with no personal apology is not enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5542067/Ex-minister-Dan-Poulter-CLEARED-sex-harassment-claims.html
It’s a cry for help.
Not so much fun when I have to mentally shift, but swings and roundabouts.