Crashed Pips - Computers, politics, emetic trash

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Andrew Burnham: Clueless

 

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

The Hon. Andrew Burnham, courtesy of 2-5 Media GbR

Andrew Burnham, the Minister for Culture (sorry, Culture Secretary - what exactly is his job?) has said in an interview with the Telegraph that cinema-style age ratings for Web sites are ‘an option’.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

Compelete and utter nonsense. It’s totally unworkable.

Firstly, let’s remember the original goals of the Internet and the World Wide Web. The whole point was to create a medium where anyone could freely express himself, and be out of the reach of governments and censorship. This idea undermines the whole principle of ‘net neutrality’ on which the Web was founded.

Moreover, let’s not forget that filters are used all the time: and there are always ways to circumvent them. Just ask any twelve-year-old how they access Bebo during their ICT lessons: proxies are available and for every website blocked, another mirror or identical proxy will spring up somewhere else.

What Mr. Burnham appears not to understand is that the Internet is very much decentralised. Any computer can host a Web site with the right software installed, and when that’s connected to the Web, it can be accessed from any machine in the world. Mr. Burnham’s understanding of the Internet appears to be like a spider: with all information in the centre and clients all outside. It does not work like that.

It worries me that the Government is getting more heavy-handed with regards to the Internet, and, for once, even it’s now becoming worthwhile to host one’s Web site outside the UK. Guido Fawkes’s blog is moving to a host outside Great Britain, because, in his words, ‘Google UK likes to please governments.’ Even the Daily Mail (and most of its commentators!) agree that the whole idea is barmy.

Tom Watson MP, a Labour MP and cabinet minister who does understand technology, is inviting the public’s opinion on his Web site, which he will forward on to Burnham. It might be worth heading over there and giving your opinions on this cretinous proposal.



Sunday, December 7, 2008

Speakers of the House of Commons who Look Like Fruits, #887

Filed under: Humour, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 15:40

 

Separated at birth?

Separated at birth?



Sunday, November 23, 2008

What difference will -2.5% make?

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 23:30

Well, with it seeming almost certain that VAT will drop by 2.5% to 15%, what difference will it make? The difference, some simple maths tells us, will be 2.127659574468085106% (which we’ll round up to a 2.13% decrease in price for simplicity’s sake).

However, with this measure meant to kickstart consumer spending, what difference will it make? Very little, Mr. Mushnik. Let’s do some simple analysis.

As major purchases are most likely out of the question, let’s try something simple, like this Christmas’s must-have gadget, the iPhone 3G. That, with the 17.5% VAT rate, costs £349. Multiplying that by 0.9787 (subtracting 2.13%) gives us a grand total saving of… £8.43. Yes. With this measure, designed to kickstart the economy, the iPhone will now cost £341.57. Of course, figures may not be totally accurate or add up to 100% due to rounding.

In this respect, let’s try something more substantial, like a Samsung 40″ HD ready LCD TV from Currys. At present, it costs £549.99. With the cuts, it is… £538.38. Great. So you can save enough money to buy a DVD with your TV. T’riffic.

Going even more substantial, let’s try a car. Like, for example, a Chevrolet Lacetti, used as Top Gear’s benchmark reasonably priced car. The base model is £11,995. After cuts, that’ll be £11,739.51. Again, not a major difference considering the actual cost of the thing.

In this case, let’s try the other end of the spectrum as cars go. Aston Martin have recently announced the new One-77, which will cost somewhere between £1,050,000 and £1,200,000. We’ll take the 1.05+E6 figure as a conservative estimate. After cuts, that’s £1,027,635. That’s quite surprising: that’s a major difference.

So the VAT cut MAY make a difference after all: unemployed bankers undergoing early mid-life crises will all buy overpriced supercars, bouyed on by the fact they’ll have twenty-two grand left over at the end, which will cause all Aston Martins to fall way down Top Gear’s cool wall, which will ruin Aston Martin’s business, which will cause the automotive industry to collapse which will cause another crash on Wall Street which will eff up the economy for the next thousand years. Darling, YOU IMBECILE!



Gordon Brown Likes Packages

Filed under: Humour, Politics — Tags: , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 12:57
Gordon Brown IS the PackageMaster

Gordon Brown IS the PackageMaster

It apppears our Great Leader and his band of minions apostles have a very strange fetish - for packages.

It’s quite obvious to anyone who’s had at least one eye on political happennings for the last year or so. No act of the government is announced on its own any more - they are all part of packages. The alleged cut in VAT that may be announced in the pre-budget report? That’ll be part of a broad package of measures. When something bad happens, the typecast ‘annoying spokeswoman with strange accent and oddly-timed words’ will always be trundled out to tell journalists that they are ‘working with the community to put together an appropriate package so that we can invest in community services’ (i.e. they’re getting some old, fat, obscenely rich people together in a council chamber and making a quick, drunk decision before they go back out on the pull).

Of course, the Dear Leader may be the one orchestrating this package-fest, with his ministers obsequiously doing up the strapping and slapping on the FRAGILE label. Maybe Gordon subscribes to Packaging Digest, and reads it after a bad session of Prime Minister’s Questions.

Or maybe, just maybe… he’s scared of unilateral approaches, because even though they may work in practice, they look bad politically.



Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Would Gordon really call an election?

Filed under: Politics, The News — Tags: , , , , — Jonathan Rothwell @ 17:59

Short answer: no. Gordon Brown couldn’t call an election, and didn’t, simply because of the fact that he still has a lot of work to do to convince the public that he’s the right man for the job, despite what the opinion polls say.

I reckon, however, that one of his reason for acting as if an election was imminent, was that he could trick the Tories into revealing all their policies suddenly, and in a rush, so that it would be easy for the other parties to pick holes in them.



Powered by WordPress 2.7 Comments are the responsibility of their respective author. The Rest © 2007-2009 Jonathan Rothwell, unless otherwise stated.