When will Israel stop? What we are seeing is the indiscriminate anger of a madman on a rampage. It’s unreasonable to cause this level of destruction to a civilian population. Israel seems to be content and intent on eliminating and controlling the whole of Gazza at any cost. Israel’s anger is unhumane and disproportionate and should no longer be supported by the American Government nor the British Government. Yes Hamas must be taken down but this can only be achieved by taking away Hamas’s power from within the population it serves. Isreal’s actions are simply serving as a recruiting campaign for Hamas and a justification. It’s up to the Palestinians themselves to act to defeat Hamas and find a leadership which better serves it population. To do this Isreal must stop persecuting the people of Palestine in thiis war on Gazza. Israel’s strategy is actually fuelling more anger against Israel and as such is counterproductive. The conditions in Gazza must be improved and the expecctation of Isreal must become more realistic and sane. Isreal cannot expect the population to continally be on the move at their will. Intense bombing of civilian areas has to stop. Already there is no where for these people to return to. Housing is now a huge issue as is obtaining and maintaining the basic fundamentals for health and life. Isreal has no right to bomb schools , nurseries nor hospitals and any such bombing should be seen as a war crime.
Author: jumb0Dufus2
AI only 3 possible outcomes
AI has 3 possible outcomes: you choose which one fits best.
The first thing you need to realise is that from the inception of Science Fiction writing there has been this notion that a future with machines will lead to a less complicated lifestyle for the human race as machines undertake most of the tasks that humans have to perform routinely in their daily lives in order to survive. This leads to a life of leisure for humans. What needs to be understood is that this Utopia was just a fictional ideal that in reality would never happen or only partially happen for those that have control of the machines.
Kier Starmer’s just wishful thinking
Take one thing away from the latest Labour Party Conference and that is Kier Starmer is basing his election Manifesto on wishful thinking. Labour has dropped all pretences of renationalising the key industries and has instead turned it’s favours towards businesses and market forces. Again distancing itself from it’s key Labour Values of re-nationalisation it moves closer and closer to the policies and ambitions of Tony Blair. In fact Starmer actually celebrated Blair in his speech. So now we have a Labour Party again bereft of real ambition and purpose, which is prepared to easily throw away or disregard key Labour Party Values.
Don’t pay Lockdown Fines until they are in line with Partygate Fines because the Met Police have set a precendent
Concerning the Partygate Fines why was Boris Johnson and other Tory Party Goers only fined £50 when other people were being given fines of upwards of £5000 and in some cases as much as £14,000? Why were these Partygate fines so disprotionate to other Lockdown fines. Why have the Metropolitan Police treated Partygate fines so leniently in comparison to other Lockdown Fines issued? There is a sense that the Partygate fines given were too lenient. Are other Lockdown Fines given out excessive and in comparison. How can the Met Police explain the disproportionality between these amounts? Have the Metropolitan Police got questions that need to be asked about why the fines given out to Tory Partygate attendees were so dimunitive? It appears that these people have been treated different from others who were also fined during Covid Lockdowns. Why was Partygate treated so superficially by the Metropolitan Police Force? Specifically why were these fines, given to Partygate attendees so diminutive in comparison to other fines that were metered out to ordinary people? Also being that the police had a presence at Downing Street throughout Lockdowns shouldn’t questions be asked as to why they apparently knew nothing or if they certainly did then why did they not act on it at the time? Why did it take a leak of information to bring the matter to the attention of the police?
How Can this Guitar work at all with this wiring?
How can this wiring even work. It undermines all that I know and understand about how a 5 Way Switch works. From all that i read on Google from various sources this 5 Way switch appears to have been wired up incorrectly. A 5 way switch is supposed to have 2 sides to the switch albeit that this is an imported 5 way where the configuration runs up all on one side. However in principle it operates exactly the same as the original Fender 5 way switches. It has a Part A which are the the first 4 connectors then a Part B which are the next 4 connectors. Both sides are separate so that Part A ends at connector 4. The first 3 connectors are normally connections for pickups starting with Bridge, the Middle than Neck. The 4th connector is a common to all these inputs and is usually used to either take output from the switch to the Volume pot Input. however it can also be used with a bridging wire to connect up both sides of the switch to open up more options for connectivity.
So what is baffling about this wiring is the output to the Volume Pot goes out from Connector 5 on the switch. this should be the Common to the second B Part of the switch. There is no bridging wire being used to connect 4 to 5 so the switch parts remain separate. Therefore Parts A and parts B of the switch remain separated. There should be no signal here to send to the Volume Pot. however before I undertook the breakup of the guitar it was working. So what was making it work because from what I understand about 5 Way switches this was not possible? Can anyone enlighten me. most of the research that I have done on Google supports my assumptions.
This guitar was originally set up with a HSS configuration.
AI- Why Humans must fight back
The companies developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) are mainly interested in profit and ways to reduce the workforce. If they see an opportunity to replace a Human with a robot they will. If a task that a human currently does can be done by AI they will make it. Companies are falling over backwards for this kind of opportunity to maximise their profits. Greedy capitalist enterprises are always seeking new ways to decrease their workforces. Venture Capitalists in companies such as Uber would willingly invest in driverless vehicles for example if it meant a healthy profit. And the companies developing AI will certainly deliver the product to anyone willing to invest in their technologies. They will do this without any ethical considerations or conscience.
‘A Changed Labour Party’ pursueing Electoral Credibility but at what cost to policies?
‘A Changed Labour Party’ as Kier Starmer likes to call it, pursueing electoral credibility but at what cost to policies? Sir Kier Starmer keeps dropping in phrases about the Labour Party’s electoral credibility but what is unclear about his focus on this issue is the cost to the Labour Party’s policies and ambitions.
The last time we saw ‘A changed Labour Party’ was that of Tony Blair: and what a disaster that was
The last time we saw ‘A Changed Labour Party’ was that of Tony Blair’s ‘New Labour’: and what a disaster that was. So is Starmer wanting to take Labour back to the uninspiring and instantly forgettable Tony Blair years? Well on the face of it it would appear to be so. So even though the Tories are gifting the next General Election to Labour, nervous Starmer still seems intent on watering the Labour Party policies down to worthlessness.
Saturday Night TV on the BBC all repeats, whats going on?
Sat here on a Saturday night wondering if I had been travelling in time with Dr Who. All repeats of the Wheel and Blankety Blank. I even knew the outcome of the Wheel because my mindvhad been refreshed by watching Gogglebox earlier in the week which had the very same episode. So what’s going on with Saturday Night entertainment on the BBC? It’s really no fun watching repeats of game shows when you know what’s going to happen. Either give us a new series of the Wheel or something completely new. Watching predictable TV is certainly not on during prime viewing.
Waterways Pollution in Britain: Thatcher’s privatisations come to a shitty end
Last weeks admissions of failure by the British Water Companies are the perfect demonstration of the failure of Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations. Water pollution in the UK reflects and reveals decades of mismanagement by these water companies and exposes once and for all the failures of Britain’s privatisations brought about by the Thatcher and Major governments.
Now the final cost of these privatisations include polluted rivers and the coastline of the British Isles. Years of lack of investment and mismanagement have surfaced to show us the extent of the problems of privatisation. These companies have been creaming off profits to shareholders and investing in other business interests whilst neglecting their primary purpose. The stench of corruption and malpractice is as bad as the stench left by them in our polluted rivers and our beaches. Companies such as these have the obligation to look after the resources they are managing not to trash them. This obligation should be a prerequisite to the nature of there work. Hence by increasing pollution in our rivers and upon our beaches they have failed to execute their duties properly and should be removed as a liability as quickly as possible. It wouldn’t take long to do this and to prove this in a court of law and the British Government should be pressed to do so as a matter of obligation. However we have a Conservative Government in power that still supports these failed privations dating back to the Thatcher and Major Governments so any action on the matter seems remote.
Continue reading Waterways Pollution in Britain: Thatcher’s privatisations come to a shitty end
A.I. Just because we can do it doesn’t mean we should
Artificial Intelligence (AI) could determine our roles in the future and determine human societies. AI has the potential to undermine societies and destabilise human relationships. At present we have the ability to decide which way we wish to go with A.I but we should understand the consequences of using A.I. before we go any further with it’s implementation.
Just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do it
Artificial Intelligence (A.I) is a case in point here and just because we can do it doesn’t necessarily mean that we should do it. To progress an implement A.I means taking away a humans ability to do the same thing and give it to a machine of a chunk of code (or both). To progress like this and measure it in only profit and efficiency terms could be irresponsible. To consider the implementation of A.I. there has to be more consideration given other than just implementation for profit and efficiency gains. We have to learn to consider this topics of ethics, social responsibility, macro economics, social factors and even matters of world order. At present the world and various big players ( companies) are pressing ahead with A.I regardless. There seems to be a free laissez-faire attitude among Government’s to just let A.I happen. Nobody seems to be envisaging the future and what our increasing obsession with A.I. could potentially lead to.
Continue reading A.I. Just because we can do it doesn’t mean we should