Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[two sheds]

Sooo....... no counter-argument Diamond?

p.s. what kabbes said

 

[two sheds]

By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the "here and now"

But where precisely did the assessment for membership/affiliation etc suggest that the applicant *not* strictly limit themselves to how the applicant present themselves in the "here and now"?

Do you not understand plain English?

 

[Diamond]

Was "fuck off" not clear enough for you? How's your "hounding off the board" going for you, by the way?

So, to be clear, your final word on the matter is "fuck off"?

In a way one has to admire such small minded precision.

 

[mauvais]

ok fair play - my point was largely what as I recall Chomsky remarks about the state (i.e. all of us) often putting in the money to perform basic research (e.g. BT when it was a public company) which is then made available free of charge to companies who develop their own intellectual property from it. Public money funding private gain.

In theory it's a fine principle, but in reality if you made all government-commissioned software public open source tomorrow, then on a £s spent basis, there would still be very little interesting IPR or material that would lend itself to cost-efficient reuse. Not just for smaller entities but even for anyone other than the original author. The government are actually already reasonably good at managing their contractual terms with regard to further commercial exploitation by the commissioned developers.

Admittedly the above concentrates on the large scale and bespoke, and there is something to be said for the public good derived from avoiding vendor lock-in and such, but it's no panacea. In most realms, doing the same thing better should be a more urgent priority. Doesn't make for very exciting techno-policy though.

 

[J Ed]

Anyways - back to JC - in the event that he bows out and McDonnell picks up the baton, would JC supporters here be happy to support him?

I didn't realise that people actually thought that was a possibility. I suppose some people do believe what they read in the Telegraph.

 

[kabbes]

My favourite Desmond moment

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-men-and-women.332753/page-9#post-13755480

Does promising to "hound someone out" and then failing to do so count as a breach of contract, Desmond? Do enlighten us in a yet another tedious failure to understand context and nuance.

 

[Diamond]

Do you not understand plain English?

Well, I don't really understand your point, to be perfectly frank.

 

[Diamond]

My favourite Desmond moment

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...for-men-and-women.332753/page-9#post-13755480

Does promising to "hound someone out" and then failing to do so count as a breach of contract, Desmond? Do enlighten us in a yet another tedious failure to understand context and nuance.

Moving away from your little black book, shall we return to the point at hand...?

 

[two sheds]

In theory it's a fine principle, but in reality if you made all government-commissioned software public open source tomorrow, then on a £s spent basis, there would still be very little interesting IPR or material that would lend itself to cost-efficient reuse. Not just for smaller entities but even for anyone other than the original author. The government are actually already reasonably good at managing their contractual terms with regard to further commercial exploitation by the commissioned developers.

Admittedly the above concentrates on the large scale and bespoke, and there is something to be said for the public good derived from avoiding vendor lock-in and such, but it's no panacea. In most realms, doing the same thing better should be a more urgent priority. Doesn't make for very exciting techno-policy though.

You know more about this than I do but couldn't government research IP be charged similarly to private research IP? A lot of university research is now (I understand) privately funded but the private company benefits from the IP.

Large amounts of government funded research (again I think - not totally sure) goes into setting standards. It's good that these standards are freely available but private IP isn't freely available - seems weighted on only one side of the scale.

 

[two sheds]

Well, I don't really understand your point, to be perfectly frank.

ok - explain this:

By arguing that that wording limited the assessment for membership/affiliation etc strictly to how the applicant presents themselves in the "here and now"

 

[kabbes]

Why should I engage with you, you insufferable prick, Desmond? There's literally nothing in it for me whatsoever. No insight, no humour, no goodwill. Just endless tedious hair splitting. No thanks, I'd rather you just fuck off.

 

[Diamond]

Why should I engage with you, you insufferable prick, Desmond? There's literally nothing in it for me whatsoever. No insight, no humour, no goodwill. Just endless tedious hair splitting. No thanks, I'd rather you just fuck off.

But you are posting stuff that is pretty misleading and deserves to be challenged.

Given the personal animus, which to be clear is not shared and I find more than a little mystifying, it is perhaps not ideal for you that I'm the one asking the questions but it's better that someone does rather than no-one at all because what you've asserted as written is very weak indeed.

 

[two sheds]

Sooo....... no counter-argument Diamond?

 

[Diamond]

ok - explain this:

I think the point is explained above but, broadly speaking and simply put, it is very difficult to see how Labour would limit its assessment in the manner that kabbes' suggests given the current wording and well established principles in general.

 

[two sheds]

I think the point is explained above but, broadly speaking and simply put, it is very difficult to see how Labour would limit its assessment in the manner that kabbes' suggests given the current wording and well established principles in general.

and how is that?

 

[Diamond]

and how is that?

The relevant wording is deliberately broad and to limit it to kabbes' reading would probably be illegal if challenged.

e2a - maybe that's a bit strong - may be found to be illegal - is closer to the mark.

 

[two sheds]

Why had his team not reserved their seats?

Presumably they knew weeks ago that they would need to take that train.

Can I just check your first post on this thread?

You will agree that your question is actually, legally speaking and from a normal English language perspective, a load of bollocks.

Could we just establish that before going on to these later fine points of English law?

 

[two sheds]

The relevant wording is deliberately broad and to limit it to kabbes' reading would probably be illegal if challenged.

e2a - maybe that's a bit strong - may be found to be illegal - is closer to the mark.

but what is the relevant wording? You're making circular references now

 

[Diamond]

bit what is the relevant wording?

"reason to believe" is the operative part.

 

[two sheds]

"reason to believe" is the operative part.

but reason to believe what???

 

[ViolentPanda]

by coincidence two sheds given your mention of Stalinism I was just about to ask what do Corbyn supporters think about this piece by Sam Hamad? A few quotes to give an idea of the argument:




Regarding this bit:

I'm not sure about the Stalinist angle. He has links with the Morning Star lot which I guess is a descendent of Stalinists, but he seems more to be a product of the decayed liberal left which contains the dregs of Labourism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and other stuff in a cartoonish anti-imperialist swamp, hence why he was chair of the decidedly dodgy Stop the War Coalition. As usual, his politics are top down - calling for imperialist powers and a savage dictatorship to get round the table and sideline the opposition on the ground.

Anyone painting Corbyn as a Stalinist clearly can't distinguish between dictatorship and Parliamentarism, the fuckwits.

 

[Diamond]

but reason to believe what???

kabbes' has posted a link above if you need to read the text again.

 

[mauvais]

You know more about this than I do but couldn't government research IP be charged similarly to private research IP? A lot of university research is now (I understand) privately funded but the private company benefits from the IP. Although simultaneously very bad at commercialisation.

Large amounts of government funded research (again I think - not totally sure) goes into setting standards. It's good that these standards are freely available but private IP isn't freely available - seems weighted on only one side of the scale.

To be honest I don't know much about the university model, other than that they're very good at maintaining IP rights, even if the private entity shares them equally.

The thing is that most (per £) software development isn't conventional research, any more than construction is. Think of it as blueprints followed by a lot of heavy lifting, wiring and plumbing. It's different every time based on the nature of the building you commission, and it's not easy, but having the blueprints to the building you just paid for - or a job lot of pipes for that matter - doesn't really help you build the next one. There may be original and novel work in there too, of course, but not necessarily as a single block to be lifted out and intelligently duplicated.

Now if you take a sector that is more research oriented, like the military and weapons development, you might be on to something. The trouble is that you start to meddle with the raison d'etre of your suppliers. Force your defence contractor to pony up all their research to their competitors - ignore that it's a small incestuous gene pool these days - and you take away the momentum of reusable, resellable IP that keeps them in the game. At least traditionally, anyway. Then if you want to keep being supplied, since noone else can do it, you're back to some form of nationalisation and doing it in-house. Not necessarily a bad thing but probably not what was intended.

And as you mention standards, standards are a key part of software and the antidote to vendor lock-in. If you commission your massive software system to be built in an appropriate way, using proper interfaces and proper standards, then it's only a secondary consideration as to whether the deliverable is open source or not. If you want someone to extend it, or have it talk to something else, you can build on what you have because it was designed to allow this. That's far more important than whether you can theoretically give someone the entire codebase and get them to run with it - after paying the original amount again to have them figure it out.

 

[kabbes]

but reason to believe what???

It will never end, I'm telling you now. The actual reality of any interpretation is utterly irrelevant. All that awaits you is endless hair splitting that ignores 90% if what you say and misinterprets the other 10%

 

[coley]

Are you now or have you ever been tweeting in support of the Green Party?

CONC, makes it sound like every bugger that likes the Green Party is a budgy or a spuggy, tweeting!? WTF invented thon stupid term!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This thread is confusing me now.

I've no idea what mauvais is on about, but he's probably right.

I've no idea what Diamond is on about, but he's probably wrong.

 

[two sheds]

kabbes' has posted a link above if you need to read the text again.

what you said makes no sense without the context. give the context.

 

[mauvais]

This thread is confusing me now.

I've no idea what mauvais is on about, but he's probably right.

I've no idea what Diamond is on about, but he's probably wrong.

Corbyn's digital manifesto, in the news today.

 

[Diamond]

what you said makes no sense without the context. give the context.

The context is the assessment of an application! Isn't that obvious?

 

[coley]

I liked the programming for everyone thing. It's a principle that should be rolled out universally. No private profits from public money.

While I agree in principle, in reality, putting that into practice would fuck society up 'big time'