What a weird language we have

The bandage was wound around the wound.
2)   The farm was used to produce produce.
3)   The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4)   We must polish the Polish furniture..
5)   He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6).  The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.

7).   Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8).  A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9)   When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.

11)  The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12)  There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13)  They were too close to the door to close it.
14)  The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15)  A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16)  To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17)  The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18)  Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19)  I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20)  How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
21)  One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese?
22). One index, 2 indices
23). You can make amends but not a single amend
24)  People recite at a play and play at a recital
25)  Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
26) Noses run, feet smell
27). Slim chance and a fat chance – more or less the same thing
28) A wise man and a wise guy are opposites
29). Your house can burn up as it burns down
30)  You fill in a form by filling it out

 

 

Statistics for the day

International confidence in US leadership has slumped since Donald Trump moved into the White House, with America now less trusted than China in the global approval ratings. A Gallup poll of opinion in 134 countries showed a record collapse in approval for US leadership, falling from 48% under Obama to 30% after a year of Trump. It is the lowest figure recorded since Gallup began the poll series a decade ago and follows Trump’s “America first” foreign policy which has prioritised American interests ahead of international cohesion. Germany is now seen as a global leader by more people (41%), with China in second place on 31%.  (quoted by The Guardian, January 18th, 2018).

I am surprised that Trump’s figures are not lower.  What aspects of Trump’s policies and behaviour do the 30% find positive?  Certainly, Trump is busy making the US a second class power, notwithstanding the obscene amount of money spent on the rather ineffectual military.

Fighting back against data harvesting (No. 2)

Privacy and security? All is not lost. The techies are working on it. Read on…………

We need to combine the control and personal autonomy of the early web with the ease and usefulness of the one we have today. A project called Solid, led by none other than Tim Berners-Lee himself, seeks to separate our data from the apps and servers that process it. With Solid, you get to decide where your data lives – on your phone, a server at work, or with a cloud provider, as it probably does now. You have ownership of your most important bits of data. If you quit Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn at the moment all your connections and contacts are lost. With Solid, you carry this information away with you and apply it elsewhere if you wish.

Another company tackling this same problem is MaidSafe, which relies on encryption and the blockchain – the distributed ledger technology that underpins bitcoin – to divorce data from servers. Where Solid would operate as a virtual layer on top of the existing structure of the internet, MaidSafe’s network does away with servers completely. Instead, it asks everyone who joins to contribute a little computing power and storage. To join, you simply download their software, and it is this, rather than central operators like Facebook, that encrypts your data and keeps track of it. With no servers, there are no targets for attackers. No system today provides physical security for your private data.

How do you log in to a website if there’s no server at the other end to deal with the request? The answer in this case is to log into the network itself – which consists of whatever computers happen to be online at the time. For contributing to the running of this serverless internet, users earn a bitcoin-like cryptocurrency called Safecoin. This can be exchanged for services on the network or converted to other currencies. MaidSafe’s fledgling community has already developed a handful of apps, including a blogging platform, a file-sharing application and a basic social network. Email and video conferencing are in the works. Meanwhile, there are a number of other ideas out there, including charging the major companies a small fee whenever they use your data for resale. (An edited version of an article by Hal Hodson, New Scientist).

There is something totally unethical and unacceptable about these big companies taking what you do, who you know, where you have been and what you have bought and selling it without your knowledge. Wresting even a small part of that income from the Facebooks of the world seems unlikely at the moment. But common sense tells me it cannot stand indefinately.

Fighting back against data harvesting, No.1

Data harvesting: the problem

The original World Wide Web, invented by Tim Berners-Lee at the particle physics centre CERN near Geneva in 1999, was a “decentralised” affair. There were no central servers; websites ran on individual machines in universities, offices and bedrooms. Hosting a site just meant plugging a computer into your internet connection and having it serve up the HTML code to anyone visiting. No one company ruled the roost, but getting involved was too difficult for most people.

Despite its seemingly infinite nature, the web is now largely centred on just a handful of companies. Instead of a proliferation of independently run sites, the web is dominated by global firms with whom we have made a Faustian pact. In exchange for convenience, we let companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon – and, more recently, start-ups like Uber and Airbnb – conduct their business by siphoning up and profiting from information that is used to target advertising and sell stuff back to us.  The data also forms the building blocks for a new generation of artificial intelligence that will determine the future of the web.  We,  the ones producing this valuable data, have lost control of it, and need to get it back and break the monopolies of the server farms and the people who own them, and get back to the way the web was always intended,

Objections?  Firstly, we don’t really know what information is being collected and used without permission. It is easy to spy on people if you know how to do it, and our work is easily hacked by thieves. And yet we have no choice but use the internet and the uncertainty makes many people nervous.

Secondly, the small number of companies are making huge fortunes out of our information, and we are paid not a penny for it  (now even the car manufacturers are doing the same thing). The data is collected not just on computers and i-pads but on smart devices in our homes – and cars!  Artificial intelligences being created by internet companies will make us ever more dependent on their services. Coupled with this is the rise of decision-making software, which firms are increasingly using to help make calls about loans, job applications and health insurance based on your data. In effect our personal data is being used to train artificial intelligence operated machines how to manipulate us.  (A heavily edited version of an article by Hal Hodson, New Scientist)

Tomorrow: about the people who are trying to fight back against mass  data collection and its mis-use.

The moral cowardice of moderate conservatism in Britain.

Historically speaking, but especially since when George Bush Jr became president in 2000, British conservatives have regarded themselves as more reasonable than their American cousins. Unlike the Republicans, British conservatives have no desire to allow mass gun ownership. They firmly believe in universal healthcare, even if they want the private sector to play a role in delivering it. For the most part, they accept the science of climate change, even if some are sceptical of government initiatives in the name of environmentalism. The British conservative movement is also much less religious, and so social conservatism is less pronounced, and a belief in creationism is held only by a very small minority.

When Donald Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, the contrast between British and American conservatives could not have been greater. Trump epitomised the popular stereotype of American conservatives amongst British people: brash, rude, arrogant, totally self-confident, crudely xenophobic. Conversely, Britain was led by a Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron- an Old Etonian with impeccable manners and charm, even if he was never wildly popular. Cameron was a moderating force within the Conservative Party, whereas Trump indulged all of the Republicans’ worst instincts.

But since Brexit, and particularly since Trump’s inauguration, I would argue that British conservatives aren’t necessarily more reasonable than their American counterparts. The obvious example is that many British conservatives have defended Trump. UKIP, a nationalist party that played a crucial role in winning the EU referendum for Leave, overtly supported him. Some conservatives have made needlessly ambiguous signals as to how they feel about Trump. Many argue that Trump is good for Brexit Britain, since he is more likely to give the UK a trade deal than Hillary Clinton. But Theresa May and the Conservative Party’s sucking up to Trump has backfired. Trump is extremely unlikely to sign a free trade deal with the UK. When the Democrats return to power, they will prioritise a trade deal with an anti-Trump EU, which is a much larger market than the somewhat pro-Trump UK. Not only was trying to establish a close relationship immoral, it was also counterproductive.

British conservatives have also abandoned moderation in regards to Brexit. Most of the parliamentary Conservative Party supported Remain. When Leave won, they rightly said they would respect the result. But since then, they have embarked on a strategy of ruin. They triggered Article 50 in the belief that a process clearly designed to favour the EU could yield a good outcome for the UK. Article 50 was triggered prematurely- the process should not have started until the government was united and clear as to what precise sort of Brexit it wanted. Theresa May has ruled out staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, believing that a deal negotiated in a short period of time will be better for the country than an off the shelf agreement akin to Norway’s. This is foolishness of the highest order; ruling out staying in the Single Market and Customs Union means having to accept whatever the EU offers the UK, since leaving without a deal at all is just about the worst possible outcome.

Post-Brexit Britain has experienced a notable rise in extremely conservative viewpoints being made, even if all conservatives don’t necessarily share them. The right wing press has embarked on a Breitbart-style ideological crusade, branding anyone not committed to their views as ‘mutineers’, ‘traitors,’ ‘saboteurs,’ or ‘enemies of the people.’ British conservatives, to an even greater extent than American conservatives, are utterly convinced by the benefits of a dramatic reduction in legal immigration. The Prime Minister even wants to limit the number of foreign students, despite them contribution vast sums of money to the higher education sector and the wider economy, while claiming no benefits at all. Britain has taken in relatively few refugees, and the right wants the country to take in even fewer.

However, the most radical change in British conservatism has been its economic stance. Under David Cameron, the Conservative Party was committed to a European social democracy, albeit a slimmed down one for the sake of deficit reduction. But now, the idea that we should abandon social democracy altogether post-Brexit has entered the mainstream. Those on the Tory Right talk of a ‘Singapore on Thames’- a low tax, low regulation, tariff-free nirvana. But this would be an unmitigated disaster. For a start, unilaterally abolishing tariffs would decimate British agriculture, unable to compete with cheap imports from heavily subsidised large scale farms in American and Asia. It would eliminate the country’s leverage in negotiating free trade deals for the benefit of Britain’s exporters. A considerable reduction in taxes would also be a catastrophe. The deficit, already higher due to the costs of Brexit, would increase even further. Britain’s taxes are already relatively low by developed world standards, so there wouldn’t be much of an increase in foreign investment. Moreover, the accompanying spending cuts would also have an impact, from a worse education system to a lack of much-needed infrastructure spending. Finally, Britain cannot deregulate its way to growth. International corporations follow EU rules because the EU is such a large market; Britain does not have the clout to become a rule maker in world industry and trade.

Now I’m not saying that all British conservatives are closet Trumpists who support a hard Brexit, massively reduced immigration and neoliberalism on steroids. My point is that those once-fringe ideas are now accepted as perfectly normal, and are barely challenged by Britain’s moderate conservatives. Like the Republicans, the Conservatives are putting party unity above the country’s interests. They are going ahead with a poorly thought out Brexit strategy, and won’t challenge the Tory Right, because to do otherwise would throw the party into civil war. There are some notable exceptions, such as Anna Soubry, Kenneth Clarke, Nicky Morgan and Dominic Grieve. But for the most part, moderate conservatives have given up fighting. They may live to regret their silence, as a party dominated by the Tory Right is one more likely to lose to Labour.

For more information, I would read this excellent column: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/michael-gove-conservative-collapse/.