Ordinarily people like Musk would need to nominated and then appointed by the Senate, with all of the vetting and background checks, before he's allowed anywhere near intelligence info, sensitive documents etc. The bloke isn't even a politician and will have had no experience in dealing with the channels of clearance required to deal with issues around national security. But you know that his best mate Trump will be bypassing all of that and riding roughshod over protocols. Remember, this is the same guy who kept boxes of classified documents in the ****ing bathroom at his mansion at Mar-a-lago
My point was more what I didn't say, that being the rockets he's launching, and all the satellites he's sent up, he don't really need any intelligence detail, he already knows too much, let alone being attached to Trump like a magnet. I can remember a time when a hell of a fuss would have been made if someone privately thought about so much as launching any kind of private rocket without government permission, and that's ones that weren't even leaving the planet. You couldn't breath without government permission, but here's Musk loitering about in a t shirt with all the stiffs and know how.
As various hearings involving companies like Facebook and Google have demonstrated, the crucial political blind spot was in the age gap between the founders of those companies and those who had the political will (and ability) to rein them in. It was painful watching a room full of (some) clearly intelligent men and women grasping at straws, trying in vain to comprehend a world they were simply born in the wrong era to ever fully comprehend. It is only now that a younger generation of politician is beginning to rise to power - those who grew up with social media and algorithms a normal part of their day to day lives who therefore have a much better grasp of the subject matter. But in the interim 15-20 years, these companies have grown too vast, too opaque and too necessary to ever be put back in their box.
I think a lot of your politicians and I'm talking more your older ones, that weren't brought up in a digital age, probably had no idea where all this technology was going thus why social media has become some rampant with ****wits, because the regulation was lacking. Tbph I probably wouldn't have had a clue if it weren't for the fact I had kids, and I don't think it was until the 90's getting into the 2000 that I made a concerted effort to understand it all. Some of that would have been the kids wanting to connect up to the internet and understanding what for...the best I had at school for all this was learning binary and using old fashioned clunky type writers lol...it's no wonder a generation got completely left behind, and the people running it all were able to get out of control.
No idea why but that beautiful scene from Shawshank Redemption just came to mind, you know the one where Brooks is released after something like 40 years on the inside and he comes out to a world completely changed, so much so that he just can't keep up and has no frame of reference with which to take control of his life. Everything he used to know and understand is gone, and so he can't carry on.
And a generation of bewildered legislators acquiesced to the hand waving and ‘it’s all too difficult, you can’t possibly regulate us’. But it wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Either the Law rules, or tyrants do.
I never use to know that your android phone tracked you lol....I remember going out with some mates in London for a pub crawl, and my lad who works in London, asked what pubs I went in, when I next saw him, well I couldn't fooking remember - he goes where's your phone, and started to show me all the pubs I'd visited Which made me go ahhhh, this is why someone at work, when they had a bit of bother to deal with, said they were leaving their phone at home, so it couldn't track him - I get it now lol. I still remember when you could rock up in Woolworths, buy a phone off the shelf and no sim details or nowt were logged. I think it was only after a few terrorist incidents they started to tighten up on them, I'm thinking July 2005 bus bomb, not sure though.
It's much worse than that. Couple of moths back, my phone was OFF and I was chatting to a colleague about garden furniture for the summer. Turned my phone on later and hey-presto, all the adverts popping up on social media were for...drum roll...garden furniture deals. Just the other day I mentioned in passing how I hadn't seen "Jane Bloggs" in years and was asking someone if she was alright as she'd gone through a tough time recently. Next thing I know, hey-presto, Facebook is now suggesting Jane Bloggs as someone I should add as a friend.
Although I do enjoy the notion that somewhere in Silicon Valley some intern at Facebook or Google is being paid to read all the absolute ****e I write and say. I take some comfort from that.
Bravo to the USA for vetoing the UN Security Council's absurd resolution yesterday. Shame on this country for supporting it.
UN were calling for a ceasefire and immediate return of all hostages. Everybody else supported it. US vetoed it
ICC issues arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged Gaza war crimes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-arrest-warrant-for-benjamin-netanyahu-israel
After months pissing about not issuing any statements, they issued one broadly along the lines of what Pinkie wrote above. At that level of governance, words matter a lot. The US insisted that a ceasefire be directly linked to the release of the hostages, i.e. the former can't happen unless the latter does. The rest of the Council pushed through a text that calls for both but - crucially - doesn't make one dependent on the other. All they had to say was "we call for a ceasefire with/based on the release of all remaining hostages" and the veto wouldn't have happened. To not tie the ceasefire to the release of hostages is complete madness and as the US representative argued, essentially sends a message to Hamas that they will get what they want while giving nothing in return. No doubt this was due to the influence of various non-permanent members, and Russia. This is hugely important because as I've raised many times before, the UNSC's voice is pretty much the only voice that matters and is legally binding in that entire gargantuan institution.
He has to stand trial in Israel first for corruption and bribery charges first. They can join the queue.
I'm still confused - you said shame on this country for supporting the ceasefire, by that I assume you mean the UK. So who is responsible in the UK for calling for a ceasehire without mentioning the release of hostages and what is the Prime Minsters stance on this? When we say ceasefire is this just to help aid get in, or is this to end the war?
There's a difference between calling for a ceasefire that happens as part of an agreement that sees the return of the hostages, and a ceasefire full stop. The UK was not strong enough in pushing the former. Only Japan and the USA were, with the latter having power of veto. Full analysis is here, but probably a TLDR so I'll extract the two key paragraphs: https://www.securitycouncilreport.o...-on-a-draft-resolution-on-the-war-in-gaza.php One of the most contentious issues apparently was how to present the Council’s demands for a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. The first draft of the resolution demanded an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire to be respected by all parties and—in a separate but consecutive paragraph—it reiterated the Council’s demand for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and for the parties to comply with their international legal obligations regarding the persons they detain. However, the US apparently still found that this formulation, which had been used to overcome similar differences during the negotiations on resolution 2728, fell short of its request for an explicit conditional link between the two demands, such as the one featured in resolution 2735. That resolution, in describing the first phase of a US ceasefire proposal, referred to “an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages”. It appears, however, that the E10 did not support any such rephrasing, leading to the US request not being reflected in the draft text in blue. That's all it needed. The word 'and' to be changed to the word 'with', and we'd have our first legally binding call for a ceasefire. Bunch of clowns.
Have you answered my question, I seem to be missing it. My question was is the ceasehire while they get aid in or are we saying no aid for civilians unless the hostages are released. I also asked who within the UK authorised the ceasehire without the release of hostages and what is our PM's stance on this? You say words mean a lot, correct they do, that means not bullshitting me and I'm guessing the UK is seeing it that way to. If we are going to start arguing over with or the, then we are all going to hell in a handcart. You don't always get what you want in life, sometimes you have to give an olive branch, I think we can safely say Gaza has been smashed to pieces along with many civilians. None of ^ that is being anti Israel btw, nor have I ever been.
I think Hamas had the words exactly as they wanted, so they could carry on using the homless as bargaining chips so that the whole world who wants it stopped would force it through. We all saw what happened to the aid convoys when the UN was involved with UNWAR . They have no reason to keep the hostages only for spite and bargaining chips which is what they are doing
