Slashdot Mirror

Correlation is not causation. There is no proof that the inclination is caused by biology, nor the degree of productivity.

I don't know anything about productivity, this is the first time I've heard someone mention it. But the inclination, oh boy.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gend...
There's even a wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As always, I wouldn't trust the wiki page, but the sources might be interesting.

Oh, and here's a documentary from the Norwegian state channel. Don't worry, it's subbed in English. It's a good watch, quite explanatory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So yes, it seems to be heavily influenced by biology, even more so than findings from not-so-equal countries might suggest.

It shows that those are the major sources of difference. Except, this is not what happens. See the results in Sweden, where strong gender equality practices and education reveals _very_ strong differences in employment and education outcome. Articles include https://www.thejournal.ie/gend...

Good social science examines the hypothesis and reveals some notable biologically correlated or biologically based differences in interests and the _tendencies_ to pursue or excel in particular fields.

Please, not the Daily Mail

Sometimes you just need to accept that things sucked back then and move on (ie, don't do it again).

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Poland learned its lesson, as we see by the rise of the authoritarian far-Right in Poland PiS party and the Nazi-like National Rebirth of Poland (Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski) Party. It is no accident that the criminalization of the phrase "Polish death camps" has come at this time. It's because there is a concerted effort in Poland to erase these camps from history.

https://www.thejournal.ie/pola...

They do report the UK revenue accurately: it's 105 million pounds.

Oh really?

It may be legal, it's not honourable.

Which included 7 Billion quid from the Brits, altho the Irish only seem to have used £3.2 billion. Additionally the UK's attempts to stabilize it's own banks have resulted in £14bn going to their Irish subsidiaries.

The Eurozone has badly fucked up this situation by trying to nickel-and-dime these bailouts. For Greece they needed to do €200-250 Billion Euros at nominal (as in zero or 1%) interest back in 2010. They insisted on much less (€110 billion) at 5.5%. Then they acted surprised that a year later they needed to arrange that €100 billion (aka: almost all the money from the first bailout) needed to be written off and the interest rate reduced on the rest. But they're still charging interest (altho 3.5% is slightly less fucking stupid then 5.5% was). And they'll probably have to do a third bailout.

But Ireland, which didn't get nickel-and-dimed by a bunch of self-righteous Germans, is gonna be fine.

Except, you know, Ireland is an ally, and has a Constitution, and a set of courts.

Here's what the Irish government says:

The Constitution does not specifically state a right to privacy but the courts recognise that the personal rights in the Constitution imply the right to privacy.

For example, your private written communications and telephone conversations cannot be deliberately, consciously and unjustifiably interfered with. However, your right to privacy may be limited or restricted by legislation in the interests of the common good, public order and morality.

In the absence of primary legislation explicitly allowing foreign agencies to spy on people in Ireland or data by non-Irish people that is held or controlled in Ireland, it is not lawful for them to do so, and would be (a) prosecutable under the Criminal Law Act 1997 and (b) privately prosecutable by injured parties.

Statutes allowing for cooperation with foreign entities can be Constitutional but usually have to be carefully limited; no such statute allows for _lawful_ spying by the NSA (or GCHQ) on Irish people. It is unlikely that Irish courts would accept that it is unlawful to spy on Irish people but lawful to spy on non-Irish people holding data in Ireland, barring explicit legislation from the Dail.

That said, there *are* such statutes in force, and the Gardai do engage in surveillance, in order to police against domestic organized crime (of which there is a long history in all of Ireland). They almost certainly engage vigorously with counterparts in other countries which are variously the victims of and/or supporters of organized crime in Ireland -- the Five Eyes states include obvious counterparts. Few people in Ireland would object to cooperation with the goal of containing mass loss of life arising from organized gangs' activities, even when the gangs attempt to justify murder by appeals to sectarianism.

On the other hand, when the state refuses to explain what its doing, the population -- a chunk of which still has direct memory of living under foreign occupation with serious curtailments of their own civil liberties, and a bigger chunk of which has memories of intrusions on their own rights by the state after independence -- tends to want answers...

http://www.thejournal.ie/vodaf...

No, Google is an Irish company. If you look at which of the many companies that comprises Google worldwide, it is Google Ireland that does the majority of business with all the other countries in fact, this individual country's operation actually does all the selling of product in all the other countries too - that's why the tax bill is so low.
See, if in France, a French salesman sells an advertising campaign to a French company, it is the Irish company that does it - otherwise the sale would (obviously) count as a French sale by French people to Frenchmen, and thus then be liable for all those taxes. But if the Irish company did the selling (nudge, nudge, honest) then the tax bill is massively reduced, especially as the licensing for this sale is managed by a different Irish company (only this one is registered in Bermuda.... hence the term "double Irish" - it requires 2 Irish companies, one registered elsewhere. These are Google Ireland Ltd and Google Ireland Holdings. One does all the sales, the other does all the licencing of IP to the other. Between them, I could happily say they do all of Google's business). A simple explanation

That's the problem - not some 'grey area' where you have to draw lines over which company does business in which country, or some amorphous global company doing business everywhere. Google is an Irish company that just happens to have a "subsidiary" in California where the CEO lives.

So Google Ireland acts as a conduit - in 2009 it turned over nearly â8bn, yet profits were only â45m.

Maybe the US system of allowing related companies be treated individually for tax purposes should be scrapped. Then Google Ireland, Google Bermuda, and Google would be considered together for taxation by the US taxman...and the US would start to receive tax that is currently held outside US borders.

The problem with the UK and its secret surveillance stations is in the political power it gives the host country.
Land, power, guards, a local cover story was once all post colonial joy or NATO like anti Soviet deals, training and some basic intel sharing.
eg Cold war Sweden got some airborne elint but no UK/US like sharing/resources.
The problem with the local "citizens" is once the locals find out the steps the local rulers/politicians/military have to take to keep the secret again.
Britain's Embassy in Peking was looted by "protesters" in 1967 and lost its Rockex cypher equipment.
Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey (via TPLA and TPLF) where often at issue to further UK/US sites in the ~1960's (and other sites later during the Cold War).
ie the Cld War offered sigint facilities extreme secrecy.
Now nations offer other types of sites just to show how thankful they are:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cia-black-sites-lithuania/story?id=9400744
http://www.thejournal.ie/british-papers-reveal-interrogation-centre-in-derry-1023719-Aug2013/
"Secret British papers reveal secret 1970s interrogation centre in Derry"
Sites have many uses and can become news again years later. "subject to deep interrogation under the five techniques system the European Commission has called ‘torture’"

I don't know why you bring up Irish tax laws, it is not analogous to the situation I describe at all. Ireland is an independant country and can set whatever taxes they like.

That's just the point. They are not an independent country as they're part of the EU. France, Germany, et. al. have been screaming for many years that Ireland's low tax rates are unfair and must be raised and yet they are able to keep their tax rates as they want them, regardless of this pressure.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0119/breaking7.html
http://www.thejournal.ie/frances-bottom-line-increase-corporate-tax-or-we-wont-cut-your-bailout-rate-150942-Jun2011/
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/global/26tax.html?pagewanted=all

This isn't at all the same thing as the EU passing legislation and requiring all states to implement some form of it or face penalties. Which the 3 strikes law is a perfect example of.

It's not the same thing but it is applicable to the argument. Ireland is able to do what it wants even though it is part of the EU.

Your main argument for the EU being satisfactorily democratic is the EP.

Not only the EP (which is democratically elected) but also the council (whose members are democratically elected by each state in question) and the president of the council (who is democratically elected by those who have been democratically elected).

The EP cannot proposes legislation, only amendments. Think about that for a second. The commission holds a lot of power, yet you cannot vote for it's members.

Not directly, agreed. The commission is not directly elected but is selected by those who have been democratically elected. You can vote for those who then select the members of the commission.

To claim the people have a say in everything is bullshit. There are basically no countries where the people have a say in everything....it isn't workable with a representative democracy. Having a say on significant issues is a minimum, and something the EU misses out on. Could the people in the EU vote for or against ACTA?

I have to disagree on the basis that there is nothing stopping people from making themselves heard. When the French minority youths rioted because they had poor employment possibilities, they demonstrated (rioted really but nonetheless made themselves heard) which resulted in the French government putting in place legislation to enable short term contract firing possibilities to try and reduce unemployment in that segment of the population. To further the point, a larger (ie non-minority) segment of the French populace decided that they didn't like the new legislation and went out in the streets to demonstrate (minus the riots) in their millions. Something like ten percent of the population this time, resulting in a very quick killing of the new legislation.

Did they have a direct say? No, not at all.

Did they make themselves heard? Yes, absolutely.

The democratic deficit in the EU has been acknowledged and discussed since the 70's. That the EP is democratically elected does not make the problem go away.

As I said, it's not perfect. No system is perfect. I maintain that it is far from a joke, though, and is arguably one of the most democratic systems in place in the world today.

Apple is the odd man out in that arrangement. The bulk of their products come from apple addicts who funnel a substantial portion of their digital recreational dollars through them...

Actually, it would seem the addicts are funneling their grocery money through Apple too. A crack dealer should have it so good.

I've been reading-up a bit more on Sherlock's justifications for what's happened. Sherlock appears to be issuing the typical governmental/trade association doublespeak to justify this bullshit.

Sherlock has the balls to claim that public involvement is key in revising Irish copyright law. Why then was this change simply forced through as a statutory instrument, in the face of significant public opposition, a very obvious detrimental effects to the electorate and businesses, and without debate? He has the fucking cheek to complain about having he dogs set on him. No shit Sherlock! You bypass the democratic process to do serious harm to our rights, and then wonder why people badger you? Oh boo hoo! He claims as well that it's unfair to equate this change with SOPA. How? Really, Sherlock, is this your stupidity or do you think that we're dumb enough to not see the obvious parallels?

He's claiming that changes in copyright law are about removing barriers to innovation? Sherlock, you lying bastard. How exactly does allowing judges to pretty arbitrarily shut down websites encourage innovation? Would something like YouTube ever have existed if a law of this kind existed earlier? How about Facebook and Google? No, they'd be far too fucking risky because all it would take is an unpredictably bad day in court to shutter their business. Sherlock is either a liar or completely fucking incompetent. This shit risks causing severe harm to Ireland's ability to foster hi-tech companies, and doesn't even do much to prevent piracy. He's handed the content owners a very blunt weapon that is neither effective nor safe to use.

I'm going to participate in this "open forum" he's pushing. The Irish Internet Association itself has said that feedback from the public will be a lower priority than that coming from its members. It's too early to draw conclusions on how the IIA will handle this, yet for now Sherlock is deflecting questions about his dishonesty to this forum that shall at some point appear.

Sherlock repeatedly stresses the need for compromise between both sides. Based on his fucknuttery to date, I can make a few predictions:

1) The bulk of the compromise will not be coming from the content owners.

2) The ability to shut-down sites, SOPA style, will remain.

3) Copyright durations will remain unchanged, or will be increased

4) Penalties for copyright infringement will become harsher

5) The weaselly bastards will sell the loss of our rights as being a good thing. Hey, think of how the increase in movie production when copyright terms are extended to 1000 years, and when the Internet gets throttled during the day and switched off at night to reduce piracy.

6) In general, the entire thing will continue to be sold as essential to innovation and securing Ireland's future in the "digital economy". In reality, it will further entrench old media and criminalise a large chunk of the population.

In case I didn't make this clear, Sean Sherlock is a lying/incompetent and asinine whining cunt of a man. I wish nothing but misery upon this man and all that he holds dear.

The illustration (in TFA) of 2011b was made with one of these (visually, of course):
http://www.pulsar-optical.co.uk/prod/telescopes/sky-watcher/dobsonians.html
(Please note I have no affiliation with the above company)

As for seeing it as a faint cloud: What more do you want? Consider the image taken of supernova 2010 IK:
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2010/10/supernova1-478x377.jpg

You're looking at something that's 290,000,000+ years old. Even a faint fuzzy is enough to appreciate the fact that light had to travel a somewhat lengthy distance to get to one's eye. I think a major problem with amateur astronomy is the unrealistic expectations of many newcomers. Images from professional observatories (including space-based telescopes) show large images with significant detail - some consider this to be 'what you see through a telescope' and don't think too much about the nature of the telescope in question.

Educating people in what they're looking at and why it's so small goes a long way to improve their appreciation of the detail one can see through even a small telescope. :)