On 29/10/2023 16:13, Bevan Price wrote:
> Surely even he is not so stupid as to abandon nett-zero?
> Of course, anyone living now who is against nett zero will be beyond
> receiving blame when all the Antarctic ice has gone - and when most of
> East Anglia (and other coastal areas) lie beneath 15-20 metres of sea
> water.

I thought that had happened over twenty years ago according to greenies?

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Roland was right.
>>>
>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>
>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>
>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>
>
>This report is from April this year:

I'm talking later than that.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.

There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.
>

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:46:58 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roland was right.
>>>>
>>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>>
>>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>>
>>
>>This report is from April this year:
>
>I'm talking later than that.
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.
>
>There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.

Yes, global warming is real, and now inevitable. We need to find engineering solutions or mitigations, because it's now
too late to stop the trend.

On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>
> https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>
> South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp

Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in the
office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches. Other people also
claiming to have inside info have said some stuff doesn't reflect what
is going on.

--
Arthur Figgis

In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>> https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>> South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>
>Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in the
>office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.

Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
plausible.

>Other people also claiming to have inside info have said some stuff
>doesn't reflect what is going on.

I refer to such persons as "random bloggers", although people less
diplomatic might suggest 'purveyors of fake news'. They could even be a
deliberate sock-puppet. There's so much of it about you really can't
trust a single thing unless fact-checked.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:16:48 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:46:58 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Roland was right.
>>>>>
>>>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>>>
>>>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>>>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>>>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This report is from April this year:
>>
>>I'm talking later than that.
>>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.
>>
>>There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.
>
>Yes, global warming is real, and now inevitable. We need to find engineering solutions or mitigations, because it's now
>too late to stop the trend.

We agree on that. I was pointing out there have been a number of
stories very very recently pointing out that the measured effects of
warming are shocking climate scientists. This year there appears to
have been a bit of a step change. Past estimates, even pessimistic
ones, are now looking somewhat optimistic.

On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>
>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>
> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
> plausible.

Not this week as they're having yet another week off.

>
>> Other people also claiming to have inside info have said some stuff
>> doesn't reflect what is going on.
>
> I refer to such persons as "random bloggers", although people less
> diplomatic might suggest 'purveyors of fake news'. They could even be a
> deliberate sock-puppet. There's so much of it about you really can't
> trust a single thing unless fact-checked.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>> remarked:
>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>
>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>
>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>> plausible.
>
> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.

Yes, indeed.

But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
run out of things it wants to do.

On 01/11/2023 11:27, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>>
>>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>>
>>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>>> plausible.
>>
>> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
> terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
> run out of things it wants to do.

This is a good thing. New legislation almost invariably makes things
worse. If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.

Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 11:27, Recliner wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>>>
>>>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>>>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>>>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>>>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>>>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>>>> plausible.
>>>
>>> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.
>>
>> Yes, indeed.
>>
>> But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
>> terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
>> run out of things it wants to do.
>
> This is a good thing. New legislation almost invariably makes things
> worse.

Yes, good point!

> If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>

In message <uht7fh$1i9iv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:58:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>remarked:
>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>
>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.

>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the
>>Parliamentary week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of
>>business Thursday, but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So
>>a Friday lunch after all the politicians they are hand-holding have
>>finally caught their trains/planes back to their constituencies for
>>the weekend, is very plausible.
>
>Not this week as they're having yet another week off.

As it's not Friday yet, why is that relevant to a report of a Friday
lunch in the past?

>>> Other people also claiming to have inside info have said some stuff
>>>doesn't reflect what is going on.

>> I refer to such persons as "random bloggers", although people less
>>diplomatic might suggest 'purveyors of fake news'. They could even be
>>a deliberate sock-puppet. There's so much of it about you really
>>can't trust a single thing unless fact-checked.
>

--
Roland Perry

In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:

>> But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>lately in terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>government has simply run out of things it wants to do.
>
>This is a good thing. New legislation almost invariably makes things
>worse. If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.

Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe them
using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into an
orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sCq0N.174389$6sw7.145320@fx15.ams1>, at 11:27:20 on Wed, 1
Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>>
>>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>>
>>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>>> plausible.
>>
>> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.
>
>Yes, indeed.
>
>But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
>terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
>run out of things it wants to do.

They can't decide what they want to do, that's the problem.

Things like the Online Safety Act (26th October) have been in the
pipeline since before Theresa May's snap election, but the lack of
progress has been largely preoccupation with other things like "Getting
Brexit done in name only".

It's notable because it's the first Act which has specifically repealed
something I drafted and got through Parliament. s212(3).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/212/enacted

I hope it's because they've replaced it with something fiercer, but
haven't had time to look at the detail.
--
Roland Perry

On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>
>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>
>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>
> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
> should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
> children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe them
> using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into an
> orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.

Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.

On 01/11/2023 11:27, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>>
>>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>>
>>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>>> plausible.
>>
>> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
> terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
> run out of things it wants to do.

It only wants to do one thing and that keeps getting blocked. They are
desperately trying to get Braverman's Ruanda tourist agency up and working.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 01/11/2023 11:27, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 08:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <9fednf7lp7WL29z4nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:23:18 on Tue, 31 Oct 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 29/10/2023 10:49, Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>> This source keeps producing troubling snippets:
>>>>>  https://twitter.com/SouthEastRailGp/status/1718295873015128506
>>>>>  South & East Rail Group SERG @SouthEastRailGp
>>>>
>>>> Does the anonymous Tweeter have any credibility? The supposed
>>>> organisation doesn't have much of a profile, and I've seen questions
>>>> raised and doubts expressed - not least the idea of people being in
>>>> the office on a Friday to have "traditional" lunches.
>>>
>>> Actually that bit does have a ring of truth, because the Parliamentary
>>> week is from roughly speaking noon Monday to close of business Thursday,
>>> but various "fringe" events on Friday morning. So a Friday lunch after
>>> all the politicians they are hand-holding have finally caught their
>>> trains/planes back to their constituencies for the weekend, is very
>>> plausible.
>>
>> Not this week as they're having yet another week off.
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active lately in
> terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired government has simply
> run out of things it wants to do.

I think they're frightened of doing something to upset one faction or
other in their party.

It doesn't help that their biggest critics have jobs with hard right media.

On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 09:18:15 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:16:48 +0000, Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:46:58 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland was right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>>>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>>>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>>>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>>>>
>>>>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>>>>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>>>>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This report is from April this year:
>>>
>>>I'm talking later than that.
>>>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.
>>>
>>>There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.
>>
>>Yes, global warming is real, and now inevitable. We need to find engineering solutions or mitigations, because it's now
>>too late to stop the trend.
>
>We agree on that. I was pointing out there have been a number of
>stories very very recently pointing out that the measured effects of
>warming are shocking climate scientists. This year there appears to
>have been a bit of a step change. Past estimates, even pessimistic
>ones, are now looking somewhat optimistic.

With more water vapour in the atmosphere, won't there be more snowfall in Antarctica and over Greenland?

On 01/11/2023 12:55, Certes wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>
>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>
>> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>> should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>> children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>> them using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into
>> an orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.
>
> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.

I'm very protective of my ID and most certainly do not trust social
media companies with copies of it. I would sooner terminate my use of
their services.

What interests me is that so many organisations seem to be very
dependent on the outfit formally known as Twitter for customer
communication and I wonder what plans they have if the outfit is unable
to provide services in various markets. Or all markets come to that.

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 13:57:01 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 01/11/2023 12:55, Certes wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>>
>>> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>>> should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>>> children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>>> them using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into
>>> an orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.
>>
>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.
>
>I'm very protective of my ID and most certainly do not trust social
>media companies with copies of it. I would sooner terminate my use of
>their services.
>
>What interests me is that so many organisations seem to be very
>dependent on the outfit formally known as Twitter for customer
>communication and I wonder what plans they have if the outfit is unable
>to provide services in various markets. Or all markets come to that.

There are several potential replacement services for X. Musk seems to be successfully driving away advertisers and
posters, while failing in his ambition to get large numbers of members to pay fees, so, sooner or later, something else
will replace it.

There are at least three candidates already, but perhaps Microsoft or Alphabet will come up with something better? I'm
sure both have more than enough technical and marketing capability to do so, but they probably don't see a good enough
investment case yet. Meta hasn't had much joy yet with Threads, but that company seems to be weak at launching new
services (as opposed to making money from FB).

In message <uhthsb$1kar3$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:39 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>
>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.

>> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>>should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>>children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>>them using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into
>>an orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.
>
>Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.

It's a topic, but not especially hot; and guess what, that ship has
now sailed (after over 20+yrs of debate).

I'm sorry you think that having to prove, FSVO, that your access to
hard core porn sites is by someone who isn't a child being groomed
to expect the depicted activity is normal for them to participate in,
as well as adults.

This is the 21st Century equivalent of sending small children up
chimneys, which apologists would say they obviously acquiesced to
voluntarily, otherwise they'd have simply run away.

cf Victims of domestic abuse who obviously enjoy it if they don't
leave home along with their children and as many of their personal
possessions they can carry (but not accidentally leave on a train)
in order to sleep on the floor of a refuge [all the beds were
spoken for].

And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
(which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
--
Roland Perry

On 01/11/2023 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uhthsb$1kar3$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:39 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>
>>>  Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>>> should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>>> children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>>> them  using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever
>>> into an  orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank
>>> over.
>>
>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.
>
> It's a topic, but not especially hot; and guess what, that ship has
> now sailed (after over 20+yrs of debate).
>
> I'm sorry you think that having to prove, FSVO, that your access to
> hard core porn sites is by someone who isn't a child being groomed
> to expect the depicted activity is normal for them to participate in,
> as well as adults.
>
> This is the 21st Century equivalent of sending small children up
> chimneys, which apologists would say they obviously acquiesced to
> voluntarily, otherwise they'd have simply run away.
>
> cf Victims of domestic abuse who obviously enjoy it if they don't
> leave home along with their children and as many of their personal
> possessions they can carry (but not accidentally leave on a train)
> in order to sleep on the floor of a refuge [all the beds were
> spoken for].
>
> And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?

I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos. However, an
adult determined to show them to children would not be hindered by the
poorly designed recent legislation. Indeed, many minors wishing to view
adult material of their own accord will know enough about VPNs, Tor and
parents' internet accounts to manage without adult help.

However, we're drifting off-topic here even by our liberal standards.

In message <uhtlfd$1kt1f$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:57:01 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 01/11/2023 12:55, Certes wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>>lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>>government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>>
>>> Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not it
>>>should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other people's
>>>children presumably being irrelevant) from social media, un-clothe
>>>them using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking whatever into
>>>an orifice, then sell them on the dark web for perverts to wank over.

>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.
>
>I'm very protective of my ID and most certainly do not trust social
>media companies with copies of it. I would sooner terminate my use of
>their services.

"Your ID" is a complex concept. I've been doing some CHAPs transfers
recently, and I'm absolutely 100% sure the bank would not accept my
Twitter-handle and password as proof I was who I claimed to be.

>What interests me is that so many organisations seem to be very
>dependent on the outfit formally known as Twitter for customer
>communication and I wonder what plans they have if the outfit is unable
>to provide services in various markets. Or all markets come to that.

Commercial organisations have been fleeing Twitter for quite some time.
They are probably more interested in Facebook and TikTok this week.

They are also probably quite relieved that aggrieved customers sounding
off on Twitter will be listened to by fewer and fewer people.

--
Roland Perry

In message <uhtn8h$1l9sg$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:27:28 on Wed, 1 Nov
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>On 01/11/2023 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uhthsb$1kar3$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:39 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1
>>>>Nov 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>>>lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>>>government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>
>>>>  Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not
>>>>it should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other
>>>>people's children presumably being irrelevant) from social media,
>>>>un-clothe them  using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking
>>>>whatever into an  orifice, then sell them on the dark web for
>>>>perverts to wank over.
>>>
>>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.

>> It's a topic, but not especially hot; and guess what, that ship has
>> now sailed (after over 20+yrs of debate).

>> I'm sorry you think that having to prove, FSVO, that your access to
>> hard core porn sites is by someone who isn't a child being groomed
>> to expect the depicted activity is normal for them to participate in,
>> as well as adults.

>> This is the 21st Century equivalent of sending small children up
>>chimneys, which apologists would say they obviously acquiesced to
>>voluntarily, otherwise they'd have simply run away.

>> cf Victims of domestic abuse who obviously enjoy it if they don't
>> leave home along with their children and as many of their personal
>>possessions they can carry (but not accidentally leave on a train)
>> in order to sleep on the floor of a refuge [all the beds were
>> spoken for].

>> And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>(which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>
>I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.

So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.

>However, an adult determined to show them to children would not be
>hindered by the poorly designed recent legislation.

That's the wrong threat vector. It's adults encouraging children to look
at them independently.

>Indeed, many minors wishing to view adult material of their own accord
>will know enough about VPNs, Tor and parents' internet accounts to
>manage without adult help.

Oh dear. That canard again. To use a car analogy "all criminals, even
those just parking on double yellow lines and exceeding the speed limit
by 5mph will have fitted false number plates, so what's the point of
having them at all".

>However, we're drifting off-topic here even by our liberal standards.

I didn't bring it up.
--
Roland Perry

On 01.11.23 14:51, Recliner wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2023 09:18:15 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:16:48 +0000, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:46:58 +0000, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:10 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:30:54 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roland was right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report
>>>>>>> predicted sea levels will rise between 11 and 21 inches (28 – 55cm) by the
>>>>>>> end of the century. However, they note that a sea level rise of over 6 feet
>>>>>>> can’t be ruled out under a worst case scenario."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.asoc.org/learn/antarctic-ice-and-rising-sea-levels/#impacts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was written before the recent discovery that Antarctic sea ice is
>>>>>> melting far more quickly than expected. In fact 2023 has been an
>>>>>> eye-opener with several Holy Shit moments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This report is from April this year:
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking later than that.
>>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01818-x.
>>>>
>>>> There have also been record temperatures, again, and not by a feather.
>>>
>>> Yes, global warming is real, and now inevitable. We need to find engineering solutions or mitigations, because it's now
>>> too late to stop the trend.
>>
>> We agree on that. I was pointing out there have been a number of
>> stories very very recently pointing out that the measured effects of
>> warming are shocking climate scientists. This year there appears to
>> have been a bit of a step change. Past estimates, even pessimistic
>> ones, are now looking somewhat optimistic.
>
> With more water vapour in the atmosphere, won't there be more snowfall in Antarctica and over Greenland?

The water enters the atmosphere in the tropics, predominantly. For the
water vapour to produce snow in the antarctic and arctic, the water
vapour has to actually reach those places, and then fall as snow. The
wind patterns around the globe do not produce that outcome, rather the
water falls as rain in tropical and temporate reginos, not actic and
antarctic ones.

Robin

On 01/11/2023 15:01, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uhtn8h$1l9sg$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:27:28 on Wed, 1 Nov
> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>> On 01/11/2023 13:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uhthsb$1kar3$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:55:39 on Wed, 1 Nov
>>> 2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>> On 01/11/2023 12:19, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uhtdb1$1jgcu$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:38:09 on Wed, 1
>>>>> Nov  2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  But even when parliament is sitting, it's not been very active
>>>>>>> lately in  terms of passing new legislation. I think this tired
>>>>>>> government has simply  run out of things it wants to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a good thing.  New legislation almost invariably makes things
>>>>>> worse.  If they continue to do nothing, I may even vote for them.
>>>
>>>>>  Worse for criminals perhaps. Today's hot topic is whether or not
>>>>> it  should be illegal to scrape photos of *your* children (other
>>>>> people's  children presumably being irrelevant) from social media,
>>>>> un-clothe  them  using AI photo-processing apps, add someone poking
>>>>> whatever  into an  orifice, then sell them on the dark web for
>>>>> perverts to wank  over.
>>>>
>>>> Today's hot topic is whether the government can increase its
>>>> surveillance of our internet use by requiring ID for everyday
>>>> activities such as social media use, with a "think of the children"
>>>> call to action tacked on to make it more palatable.
>
>>>  It's a topic, but not especially hot; and guess what, that ship has
>>> now sailed (after over 20+yrs of debate).
>
>>>  I'm sorry you think that having to prove, FSVO, that your access to
>>> hard core porn sites is by someone who isn't a child being groomed
>>> to expect the depicted activity is normal for them to participate in,
>>> as well as adults.
>
>>>  This is the 21st Century equivalent of sending small children up
>>> chimneys, which apologists would say they obviously acquiesced to
>>> voluntarily, otherwise they'd have simply run away.
>
>>>  cf Victims of domestic abuse who obviously enjoy it if they don't
>>> leave home along with their children and as many of their personal
>>> possessions they can carry (but not accidentally leave on a train)
>>> in order to sleep on the floor of a refuge [all the beds were
>>> spoken for].
>
>>>  And if you have mainstream social media demanding to know your age
>>> (which is only compulsory under barely complied with USA law) you
>>> might want to review your choice of such platforms in the face of
>>> their institutional intransigence in taking down things like videos
>>> of toddlers being gangbanged. After all, such videos are protected
>>> by free speech (another much misunderstood USA-only law), aren't they?
>>
>> I have no interest in watching or displaying such videos.
>
> So you need to explain what dog you *do* have in this fight.

Simply that I want to go about my legal and decent daily activities,
none of which are related to children or pornography, without being
constantly snooped on.

>> However, an adult determined to show them to children would not be
>> hindered by the poorly designed recent legislation.
>
> That's the wrong threat vector. It's adults encouraging children to look
> at them independently.
>
>> Indeed, many minors wishing to view adult material of their own accord
>> will know enough about VPNs, Tor and parents' internet accounts to
>> manage without adult help.
>
> Oh dear. That canard again. To use a car analogy "all criminals, even
> those just parking on double yellow lines and exceeding the speed limit
> by 5mph will have fitted false number plates, so what's the point of
> having them at all".
>
>> However, we're drifting off-topic here even by our liberal standards.
>
> I didn't bring it up.