|
LemonDrizzle posted:The German newspaper FAZ has an account of the midweek dinner meeting between May/Davis and Juncker, which is really not complimentary at all of the PM; the Economist's Berlin bureau chief did a translation of the highlights on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/858810953353367552 drat this is all gold. We've had some rare political honesty from the Tories lately, when they've been giving the impression they have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Hide under some coats and it will all work out
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/859783194790330368 Is that bit of hair like a Pinocchio nose
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Corbyn is just incapable. I wanted him to be great, but he is very poor at handling the media, he has not been a good or persuasive leader of his own party, and the reason that he does so badly in the polls is because he is bad at his job. I mean the current government is so incredibly inept that it beggars belief. The PM is a moron. The Brexit secretary is workshy. But there is no coherent, optimistic, well-delivered counternarrative to "Trust in Tess", and his shadow cabinet is a joke. Corbyn's bad at handling the media, I don't think anyone would argue with that, but the fact is his own party has been publicly undermining him from the beginning - and it doesn't matter how many were involved, it's the amount of coverage they get and how they affect public opinion. They explicitly set out to destroy his public reputation and to paint the party as weak and ineffective under his leadership, to try and make his position untenable and force him out. It was a deliberate act of sabotage (whether you think it was justified or not) and the current perception of Labour is heavily down to that coverage painting Labour dysfunctional. That was entirely the point of all this briefing and organised resignations, this was the gamble they took, and they hosed it. It would take a pretty slick politician to reverse that narrative (especially when Labour MPs keep popping up to talk poo poo) and Corbyn ain't slick, so it's always there as an angle for every interview or news item where he or Labour are mentioned And organising this media blitz directly after the EU referendum really made prospects a lot worse, especially when they went for a 'hey also Jeremy lost the referendum' attack. Brexit is the defining issue of our political generation, it's pretty much the reason this 'inept' government can completely coast on a wave of blind optimism and stubborn nationalism. It's why Theresa May has the highest popularity ratings ever, why her party has soaring approval ratings despite all the terrible poo poo they're doing at home Brexit is an incredibly powerful totem, the Tories can use it to shore up support and whip up anger at 'the enemy' in complete opposition to the facts. It would be hard for any opposition to make headway at this stage, never mind one that's actively and publicly undermined its own credibility on Brexit, and also everything else
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Pretty sure a lot of Corbyn supporters put Burnham as a second preference, because he was actually making some leftist noises during the leadership race. He did shift that way a bit when it was clear Corbyn was doing so well, but he wasn't as obviously tied to chasing the right wing like the other two. Did add a bit to the sense of 'hey guys I'm good with whatever' though
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The more I read this thread and UK news in general, the more I think Corbyn is probably a pretty OK leader, but Labour is just such a lovely shambolic party completely lacking all confidence of the voters (and was like this before corbyn too) not even the best drat leader there ever was could fix it. That's true to a point (hard to know how good he is with all the in-fighting and factionalisation), but everything's changed with Brexit. Old loyalties and priorities were already being eroded when Miliband was leader, Labour's traditional base voting for the Tories and UKIP - partly because Labour were offering basically a diet version of the exact same thing, but also because the Tories have been better at convincing people they aren't terrible. See the 'what, you're cutting my benefits??' Tory voter on QT, and people not shouting about what they're doing to the NHS and everything else Now we have brexit and it seems like a game changer, people's number one priority. People who are 'proud Labour voters' voting Tory because they delivered the referendum and are promising the moon. The ironic thing is Theresa May says she called this election for a mandate on Brexit negotiations, and it's looking like that's exactly what she's going to get - an election that's more about the EU than governing the UK. So many people don't seem to care about anything else, and there's active hostility towards anyone who represented Remain / threatens the negotiations / talks down BRITANE. Anyone who isn't fully and fervently on board with this delusion the right wing are pushing I said before that this will probably be May's Falklands War against the EU, and it looks like it's working - talk about how strong and powerful the government and Britain are, how the enemy is trying to attack us ('they're interfering with our elections!') and how Britain is going to show them what for. People eat that poo poo up. Brexit is our 'USA! USA! USA!'
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I'm namtab, not nantab I'd watch the hell out of Batnan MikeCrotch posted:Can we stop with the whole "traditional Labour voters are going Tory/UKIP?" It was the people who were targeted by New Labour triangulation who are switching in big numbers, who only ever voted for New Labour in '97, '01 and maybe '05, namely the self employed and small businesses owners a.k.a the core of support for Thatcher. I wasn't trying to say it happened under Miliband specifically, just that by that time Labour's natural base (i.e. the demographics you'd expect to vote Labour) wasn't as solid as it used to be. The rules are changing   So what I meant was Labour already couldn't rely on its traditional level of support, and Brexit has completely thrown the whole thing up in the air - it's become a major voting issue that completely transcends normal party loyalties. We really need some polling that shows how much it factored into people's votes/non-votes in the locals
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Just to add, Blair announced he was resigning but then stayed on for six weeks or so while the leadership election took place ("election" with one candidate). So there's the option of holding a leadership contest but trying to ensure the left never loses control of the party, by having Corbyn stay on until a new (possibly left wing) leader is elected. Considering Corbyn wanted to be leader so he could push for the leadership nomination system to be changed, and that hasn't happened yet, I'd have expected him to at least stay until this year's Conference is done, general election or not He's there because he wants to change the way the party works, not just because he thinks he's the guy to take Labour to the top. Losing the election would obviously be bad and he'd face the greatest backlash so far, but it would be nothing new and that hasn't broken him yet. If he still has a goal to reform the party and a timetable for doing it, I can easily see him sticking to it. He's a strong person, fighting for a principle in a job he didn't really want to do
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
SpaceCommie posted:You ever live in a rural area you Nazi gently caress? The Hunt shows up trespasses on private land (aided by their dipshit fans who go around opening gates to fields full of livestock). They block roads and refuse to move. A whole bunch of posh folks block up the roads parking on verges so they can watch some other toffs run about in a field. He's one of those weird anglophile Americans who probably wears a monocle and demands worrsestershyur sauce at McDonalds
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Ewan posted:Hacker twitter is saying it's using the exploit patched by this release hmmmmm but that doesn't seem to have a patch for 2001's hottest OS, Windows XP? 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
ukle posted:NHS has extended support cover from MS to patch those. It costs them an absolute fortune as well for MS to provide the support. Yeah that's what I'm getting at - when the NHS is still largely running an old as poo poo, abandoned OS, is there even a guarantee that everything will be patched in a timely fashion? Even if there's a special snowflake fix available for this vulnerability, there's still a huge risk that someone will find more problems and exploit them, because it's not being actively maintained anymore, and XP is full of badness at this point Actually does anyone know the details of this support contract? Like do they still aim to patch every vulnerability at some point, or is it a triage situation for the worst issues, or do they only do the bare minimum according to the customer's needs? https://twitter.com/EllieJPrice/status/857566729081192448 baka kaba fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Yo mic check, 1 2 1 2 *listens* What the hell setting is that anyway? Looks like UKIP's vision for Britain's coastline baka kaba fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It's very very incompetent green screening Paul Nuttalls stands within the containment fence, surveying Britain's famed immigrant defences and the 'processing zone' below. Alas, it's just a beautiful dream... *wistful look*
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
namesake posted:So question for people in the know: say this event is a major push towards a completely nationalised NHS with a completely isolated network for critical systems to protect patient data from this sort of thing. How difficult would it be to build such a national network (very, obviously, but how much work would be involved) and would there be any way of incorporating wireless transmission, or is that inherently unsecure? One of the infosec threads would be the best place to ask really. I don't think wireless is inherently insecure, but obviously the remote access aspect makes for a shedload of other security considerations. But there are best practices to follow, and ideally you'd limit access to the bare minimum I remember talk of a kind of a kind of anonymised patient database, where you'd only have access to a general profile and history associated with an NHS number or something similar - the actual database linking a profile to a person would be more restricted. So you can create different levels of information sharing and modification, with different security policies for various roles and situations (like at a secure computer vs on a tablet in a clinical setting) It's sort of an open-ended question and I dunno if we have anyone with that kind of broad overview of the current system and exactly what it should be like. But really you need this to be properly designed, top-down, and fully audited for compliance. Instead of the current 'hey let's get a bunch of contractors in to make isolated parts however they want using their proprietary software, the free market will surely make this cool and efficient' mess
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Also the system has to be usable by atrocious reception staff which does not help with security. If it's properly designed it shouldn't matter. People are (supposed to be) the biggest security weakness so the system should be designed for that. Don't expose more than you need to, get a decent authentication system (not passwords because they'll stick them to the monitor), enforce security policies like locking down the computers and wiping them regularly, that kind of thing If it's properly designed it should all Just Work and minimise any potential problems. When you have a mess of different systems and hoops you need to jump through and the freedom to do things your own way, that's when things get really complicated and insecure I'm just talking generally because I don't really know much about this, but it would be a massive project for something the size of the NHS. You'd have to design it properly and build it properly and train everyone to use it and shift all the data over into the new system, running it in parallel so everyone could switch over and leave the old system for good. It's a huge investment but it still needs to be done
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
I'm talking about designing and architecting an entirely new system from the ground up, built for purpose around best practices. I mean as I understand it, the NHS as a whole is a mishmash of different systems made by different contractors who have no interest in making their software interact smoothly with other companies' software, data still isn't completely centralised, different trusts are doing things in different ways and so on If you're redoing the whole thing that would seem like a very big project, just for the sheer scope, and then you definitely need to retrain people if the processes have changed - ideally they would if your goal is to streamline things instead of having people work around all these quirks of the current setup. Even a change in the UI would require training for a lot of people, just because It's Different I mean isn't this why all the past attempts at a do-over have failed? Nobody's willing to commit to the cost of something so big with such a long horizon
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
^^^ getting mixed messages on this onenamesake posted:The second most important data collection tool that the NHS has (after Secondary User Service) is a secure website which doesn't work properly (as in, it doesn't work) in Firefox and must be set up in compatibility mode in Chrome or IE after version 7. I bet they chose that narrow platform to make a truly great experience though, right!? endlessmonotony posted:You're clueless. I don't know why you think this contradicts what I said or makes the project actually no big deal at all. Yes it needs to be run top-down with an iron fist and not by a belief in ~free market magic~. Yes that will be far better in the long run. No that doesn't make overhauling one of the world's largest organisations (literally dealing with life and death) a quick and trivial exercise. It means a cost commitment now with the benefits delivered in the future, possibly to another government - assuming it even makes it that far without the next government cancelling the whole thing. "You just need [everything to go perfectly without politics and bureaucracy interfering]" is a nice thought and all
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Ok my bad, redoing the NHS and all its disparate interconnected systems and switching everything over to it while it all continues to operate is actually a piece of piss
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Also Microsoft have taken the unusual step of releasing the Windows XP patch for this vulnerability publicly, for free. So I guess actually the cost of solving the NHS' IT problems is £0! Yeah I was gonna say, apparently XP was vulnerable to this after all Microsoft posted:We also know that some of our customers are running versions of Windows that no longer receive mainstream support. That means those customers will not have received the above mentioned Security Update released in March. Given the potential impact to customers and their businesses, we made the decision to make the Security Update for platforms in custom support only, Windows XP, Windows 8, and Windows Server 2003, broadly available for download (see links below). XP wasn't mentioned as affected on the advisories when the exploit was released, but it looks like that was more of a 'gently caress it, who cares XP is dead' position. Microsoft probably patched it for all their special support customers back in March, which doesn't include the NHS anymore of course. Taste those efficiency savings
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Uh Our hot dogs come in cans. If you want American style in plastic packages, head to the chiller section friend! I don't know what a posh dog is but I don't think you're meant to eat it
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
I call them big hot dogs
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Not the long ones. I think this is the most illustrative picture I can muster Literally anywhere (even a corner shop) will have those in tins - look near the beans. They might not be exactly as long (you can get taller cans sometimes) but those are our basic hotdogs. But a lot of places have frankfurters in their deli-like section or whatever
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:... so you're angrily agreeing with me? No they're saying your "it's simple guys, like technology #whoa" thing you've been on this whole time is dumb It's a big job, it's complicated, it's hard to get right, it's tough to actually implement it in the real world. You've had multiple people pointing out the difficulties they face in even minor changes in their own trusts and offices
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:It's really simple we need to disrupt the nhs tech paradigm with some new apps and a ball pit. Tech to the rescue once again! Hmm I think I've worked out where Jeremy Hunt is hiding
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
loving hell Yeah the technology exists to replace the current NHS... situation... with a stable, secure and maintainable IT infrastructure. Yes there are people who can make this happen. The hard problem involves the actual analysis of the existing mess of systems, the design of a universal infrastructure that covers all the current use-cases (and is fully audited to make sure this is definitely the result), the provision for all the situations where it needs to integrate with another system that can't be replaced (like medical hardware). This whole mess needs to be condensed down into a well-designed, consistent set of systems. For something the size of the NHS this ain't trivial And that's only the design stage. To get it into production you have to run it alongside the current system, pulling in the current data from the patchwork of current systems that are still running live, you have to make sure that conversion and storage is happening perfectly (missing some part of a patient's medical history could be 'real bad') so you end up with a perfect and seamless transition from all these other systems to this new one. Again, with what seems like multiple trusts basically running stuff as a bespoke local network, that's a whole load of cats to herd And then you have to train people to use this new system - while they continue to use whatever old one they're on, because the NHS has to keep working. "They'll pick up new systems fast" - a thing nobody ever says about end users, unless accompanied by a hollow laugh and downing a shot. Lots of people struggle with technology in general, never mind doing stuff in a new and different way, and there's not a lot of leeway for problems in something as critical the NHS I dunno man, your whole point seems to be 'this is totally possible, therefore it's easy and just needs money thrown at it' which sounds incredibly naive, am I missing something here?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
How about metal songs about anime?
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Thornberry is a very good speaker, she's been mooted before because of that Reminder that Miliband's Labour threw her under a bus to agree that Farage and the Tories had a very good point about her and Labour hating the working class
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's a dog whistle sneer, which everyone noticed immediately. Her explanation was "It was a house covered in British flags. I've never seen anything like it before. It had three huge flags covering the whole house. I thought it was remarkable. I've never seen a house completely covered in flags." By 'everyone noticed' you mean Cameron and Farage saw an opportunity for some lip-trembling populist outrage, which Labour basically copped to - how's that good politics? Her entire Twitter feed leading up to that pic was more of the same, lots of snapshots of the communities she was canvassing, including other pictures of houses with stuff hanging off them (someone had a sheet with something written on it, and she'd put a comment to a friend with 'this reminded me of you' or something like that). In context there wasn't anything particularly notable about that one tweet, unless you wanted to read something into it to push a very specific story. Which is exactly what Labour's rivals did, and they didn't even try to argue WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Also worth noting is that she liked to tweet about buildings and interesting things she saw. https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/472289666461601792 Look at this dogwhistle sneering at Britane's proud millers baka kaba fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Hoops posted:They stitched her right up with that photo, it hit exactly like they wanted it to. But that's what the press will do really, I'm not sure what's being argued here What's being argued is that Labour was poo poo for basically going 'uhhh, uhhh, yeah loving Thornberry, we'll get rid of her!' and admitting to the lazy accusations. All that did was feed the narrative that Labour was elitist and out of touch and just pandering to the working class to get votes
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
*extremely David Cameron voice* Ed Miliband's appearance proves he is out of touch with ordinary working people *Ed appears hours later, head shaved and wearing a potato sack* h-hell yea I'm working class
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
What's with all the dumbass tourists in here lately
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
ronya posted:the Trump Show is making people antsy Yeah that's what I was assuming - but you'd think with the sheer surreality of what's happening over there we'd get something more inspired than this 'hey fellas Jeremy Cobain of Labor is bad! Thatcher rules' crowd https://twitter.com/maldr0id/status/863838938477338625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw baka kaba fucked around with this message at 06:13 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:She at least seemed able to talk that lady down. They cut away before she could respond to 'actually we're making sure people get the money they need', maybe because the reply was 'gently caress you' Did Peston actually read that out? I mean it would make for excellent TV right?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
^^^ oh good a rerun of softball questions for the Tory, 'Putin would kick your arse in a fight m8' for Labour I hope he pressed her on it because 'nah people don't wanna see that' is such an easy dodge baka kaba fucked around with this message at 17:36 on May 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Look I don't even understand why you like the Nazis in 2017 as much as you do, but I think it affects your politics I bet Hitler thought he was a centrist
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Just saw a Labour party political broadcast that was literally just Corbyn putting forward his ideas, like an interview without the questions and some rally clips. No music or anything, no slick production, just straight talking Kind of refreshing to be honest, wonder if it'll work
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
The right-wing press (and the Mirror) have doxxed that guy who stopped the malware attacks by registering the domain name, and who wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons e- also ITV has some Corbyn profile/interview going on
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Definitely not in the early part of June
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Well he's going to become fairly rich from this then. How? You're not saying he's going to take them to court? Outing the guy and telling everyone he likes pizza is important investigative journalism
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
^^^ doesn't look like namtab's work at allserious gaylord posted:Some security firm/company will offer a lucrative position because of this. I dunno, by his own admission he didn't really know what the domain did, he just saw it in the code and saw it was unregistered. That's actually a dangerous thing to do - normally you want to take control of the malware's communication channel so you can contain and analyse it, but if you're going to do that to a central point that will affect everything infected by it worldwide, you better know what will happen. Registering that domain could have easily triggered something bad, dead man's switch style. He pretty much yoloed it Maybe he can put it on his CV now, what's more likely is he and his family and friends are gonna get harassed or worse by idiots and whoever set up this extortion racket he interrupted. That link I posted has people from the infosec industry genuinely worried for his safety baka kaba fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would tend to suggest that if you are governing out of a desire to ensure the welfare of as many as possible you're going to, by virtue of governments being limited among quasi-national lines, develop some kind of nationalism-ish thing. Because you can't really help but have your thoughts and policies be limited by the extent of your power to govern, by the extent of your nation. It's from 1948 (peasants?)
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 20:15
|
|