1. Go to the main Dreamwidth page
2. Follow the "Log In with OpenID" link
3. In the "Your OpenID URL" box, put yourusername.livejournal.com. For example, if I wanted to log in with my LiveJournal account, I would type "pseudomonas.livejournal.com".
4. Click Login.
5. Click "Yes, just this time" or "Yes, always" when LiveJournal asks if you want to validate your identity.
6. The first time you log in, you'll see a message "Please set and confirm your email address". Click the "set" link and follow the instructions.
7. You'll get an email from Dreamwidth containing a link. Follow the link to confirm your email address.
8. Follow the instructions. You should now be able to leave comments.
(text stolen from tim)
Alternatively, if you want a DW invite code, I have plenty, even if I don't know you, just click on HYAT7NJCGVFWZAAAAHGP - no need to ask permission - and comment here (screened) afterwards to let me know so I can put a new one up.
*Not to be confused with misophagia, which is eating tasty tasty fermented soya and rice paste.
I found that:
* my GP surgery had never heard of care.data.
* they assured me that they would never share my details without my explicit consent
* they were rather shocked when I showed them the leaflet that I'd had through the door. The reception manager I spoke to hadn't had a leaflet through her own door.
* they'd not had any training or guidance on how to deal with people who wanted to opt out.
* for people that had asked to opt out, they'd been opting them out of summary care records2 instead. I discovered this when they gave me a form to opt out of that, and insisted that this must be the thing I'd been referring to. I do not want to opt out of summary care records.
I have submitted an FOI request to the Department of Health here.
ETA: I have contacted the HSCIC on 0845 3006016 and reported the matter; they will contact my GP. Please do the same if you find another GP practice that's not been informed.
1 I don't think that the scheme is awful in principle; I'm basically pro medical data being used to improve future healthcare (after all, that's kinda my job) — but I'd rather not be an early-adopter until I've had time to research more about the implementation details.
2 Summary care records enable electronic sharing of medical details between clinicians.
Comments note: I really don't want this to turn into a discussion on whether it's right that medical records can be used for research on an opt-out basis or whether Jeremy Hunt is the Antichrist; there are plenty of other fora discussing that. I'm concerned with the implementation of the opting-out here.
Thanks to the British Library for releasing many of its images under a Public Domain "license"! (non-binding but polite reuse request)
Little aubergines, on the hillside; little aubergines all the same;
There's a purple one and a purple one and a purple one and a purple one
And they're all made out of aubergine and they all look just the same.
(repeat until asleep)
There are three levels of blocking:
Open Access - what people who've asked for "no filtering at all" see.
Default Safety - what people who've signed up without expressing preferences see.
Parental Control - what people who've actively asked for a child-friendly device see.
Now, O2's Parental Control is a funny old thing. It allows http://www.mcdonalds.com but blocks http://www.childline.org. To be honest, it blocks most of the internet apart from a tiny number of mostly corporate sites. It allows amazon.co.uk but blocks amazon.com. We may never know why - this is all done by their unspecified third-party partner (rumour has it that this is probably Symantec).
Wikipedia seems to be an interesting case - it's allowed, but certain pages are blacklisted. This is all done very shoddily, if the URL checker is to be believed. So https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis
The choice of which pages to block on Wikipedia is interesting. A bit of playing around revealed that there wasn't much consistency; it looked like, rather than applying a classifier to every page, someone had made a list of a few pages with titles that seemed dodgy to them, and had called it a day. This seemed an ideal opportunity to find out what the spirit was behind the blocking, especially since they kindly tell us what the category of nastiness is.
Wikipedia has a nice list of the 5000 most visited pages. I ran them through the checker3 and made a list of the aberrations, sorted by category. Pages in more than one category will appear twice; if they're blocked in one and not in the other, they're still blocked to the user.
( cut for longish table )
Notice that their "lifestyles" category has only three items within the top 5000 Wikipedia pages4. What these have in common is left as an exercise for the reader. Whether that falls foul of the Equality Act 2010 is left as an exercise for the reader who knows about English law.
Notice also that for instance the list does not include the following top-5000 pages: Asexuality, Celebrity_sex_tape, Child_pornography, Homosexuality, Human_sexuality, List_of_female_porn_stars, List_of_Masters_of_Sex_episodes, List_of_pornographic_actresses_by_decade, Masters_of_Sex, Pansexuality, Pornhub, Pornographic_film_actor, Pornographic_film, Pornography, Revenge_porn, Same-sex_marriage, Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States, Sex, Unsimulated_sex, YouPorn ... and that's just in the top 5000 out of 4 million. Anyone who thinks the filter is effective is going to be very disappointed. And those are just some of the sex-related pages - they make no attempt to block pages about war, death, torture, or other potentially distressing subjects. Again, speculation about the mindset behind this is left to the reader.
This all reflects very badly on O2; but I think we should assume that the other ISPs are every bit as incompetent, until they present us with evidence to the contrary.
If anyone would like to help me with a similar but more extensive project for TalkTalk, BT or Sky, has a line with one of those ISPs, a willingness to give me SSH access to something at your end (probably helps with that bit if you're a wee bit tech-y), and a preparedness to turn the dreaded filters on for a bit, please let me know in the comments.
I've been ranting about this at more length at pseudomonas
1 Note as an aside that the URL checker claims to be able to tell the difference between the two httpS URLs. This is very worrying if it's true, but my suspicion is that it's not and the URL checker is just shoddily written and assuming they're plain http.
2 Perhaps because they had problems finding it.
3 Actually, I misinterpreted how the URL checker dealt with encoding and ones with brackets, punctuation, apostrophes, and diacritics got skipped. Sorry.
4 Since you asked and to save you a click or two, "Bisexual" isn't in the top-5000 list of pages, but that Wikipedia page is indeed classified as "lifestyle".
So, Google Analytics and other similar web-bug technology:
I don't care who knows that I've visited any web page
I don't want everyone to know, but I don't mind Google or Quantcast or Facebook or whoever knowing which pages I've visited when (because I trust them to deal appropriately with the data)
I don't like Google or Quantcast or Facebook or whoever knowing which pages I visit when
I take steps to try and block at least some web trackers
I don't try and block web trackers, because, as I just said, I don't mind the people operating the trackers knowing which pages I've been viewing
I don't try and block web trackers, because I don't think any of the options are effective enough
I don't try and block web trackers, because I'm mainly worried about my government tracking my activity (e.g. via my ISP)
I don't try and block web trackers, because I don't trust the software that purports to do so / don't use closed-source software
I don't try and block web trackers, because my OS/browser won't support the relevant technology.
I don't try and block web trackers because I wasn't aware of them / wasn't aware of software that blocks them / haven't got round to it
I think that I'm mainly safe from such trackers (e.g. because I only use text-mode browsing)
Something else, which I will explain in comments
I assume that people who don't get shown my updates are the ones that actually weren't interested
I think most of the people who don't see my posts assume it's because I haven't posted
This misconception has caused problems at least once
I have paid Facebook to promote a post at least once
I don't have a Facebook account, but I used to.
I have never had a Facebook account.
ETA: I'd be interested to hear what the problems caused by the misconceptions were.
What percentage of your Facebook friends (of the ones who look at Facebook in the hour or so after you post) do you think are shown what you have written?
Mean: 39.29 Median: 30 Std. Dev 24.92
|No-one 0||0 (0.0%)|
|Everyone 100||0 (0.0%)|
Assume that this is a plain old text update, not a photo or anything like that. Friends that have interacted with you more often in the past will tend to be shown your activity with higher probabbility. If you have no Facebook account, don't complete the poll ;)
There is no right answer that I know of, though if someone has hard data on how to calculate these things, do comment with links.
( lost )
and we'd gain the following 399:
( gained )
The lists aren't the same length because of the difference in the way they treat words with apostrophes in - I've removed apostrophe-containing terms from both lists. Note also that the COCA list categorises words by their part of speech, so this is a bit approximate, and might exclude lexemes that score pretty highly in lots of parts of speech, but are not in the top 1000 in any single one. If I have time I'll find a way to combine them.
Squish strawberries (they were frozen since strawberry season and defrosted) through a sieve, add some sugar, a very little finely-ground black pepper, and a few drops of lemon juice. Stir in some agar powder and microwave until just boiling. Pour/spoon it into moulds - I used a silicone ice-cube-tray in the shape of shells, which I filled half-full. Made four (small experimental batch), only two came out of the moulds properly, so my host and I got one each with our cake. They tasted intensely fruity and the pepper was definitely a good idea. Next time I'll try lightly oiling the moulds and maybe adding a touch more agar (I used about a quarter of a teaspoon to maybe 40ml strawberry pulp and a teaspoon-and-a-half of sugar)
I am looking forward to trying this with some other fruit!