They don't call it the Gigafactory for nothing you know. These new GWh batteries will keep the Duracell bunny running long after nuclear fusion in the Sun shuts down.
330 posts • joined 24 Nov 2008
Agreed. Depending on the jurisdiction, an employer must be required to provide some lawful evidence for dismissal, otherwise the process could be misused to make employees redundant without legal recourse.
I wonder what burden of proof / evidence is required for an internal disciplinary matter such as this, and is their investigation / decision bound by law? Is primary / recorded evidence required or is an accusatory statement from two other individuals sufficient to get someone fired? If the latter, then conspiring against an employee is a simple affair.
"Where are all those high-paid financial sector workers going to buy their status-symbol luxury cars from?"
Why not make them here since the market is here?
"Perhaps if people were less blinded by xenophobic, anti EU propaganda spouted by our 'independent press', and actually took part in european democracy"
If our politicians were less blinded by pro-globalist anti-British propaganda spouted by our controlled media and education system we would have avoided all these problems by NOT JOINING A POLITICAL UNION AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF THE ELECTORATE.
Why should we partake in a European democracy that we never wanted to be part of, and that is inferior to our own democracy? Why do you expect people who never asked to join to support remaining?
"where are all the workers going to come from to do all the sh1t jobs"
Who do you think did the work before we joined the EU? Oh look, the jobs were better paid (relatively) in those days too so people were more willing to do them, but no you have to racially slander British workers for not accepting a lower standard of living. Less immigration = less inequality.
Higher wages for low skilled jobs also encourages innovation to improve worker efficiency. With a ready supply of cheap workers we innovate less.
"German car manufacturer sell more cars in a day to India/China than they do in a year in the UK. "
From what nether-region did you pull this ridiculous claim? It should be self-evident that you are wrong by at least 1-2 orders of magnitude.
If you base your opinion on false information like this, it's time to re-evaluate your opinion.
"I'm guessing that then *all* cars will be 20% more expensive, not just the German ones..."
EU made cars will be dearer when Britain exists the EU. Cars made elsewhere could be more affordable depending on what trade agreements the UK makes.
This will incentivise manufacturers to make cars for the UK market in the UK, and help balance our trade deficit.
"As for Farage (add Bojo, DDavis, etc), (they are) he is a lying ... windbag"
The so-called lies of the Brexit camp are small overestimates versus the remain camp which were outright lies = an inversion of the truth.
e.g. Blair claiming that the EU does not take away British sovereignty, or Cameron claiming that Turkey would never join the EU then claiming the opposite to a different audience.
"<some racist Anti-British lies> ... an unstaffed NHS to patch them up"
How do you think the NHS was staffed before we joined the EU? Oh look it worked fine and it's staffing model was sustainable. Now, thanks to globalisation, we have an unsustainable staffing model which is dependent on immigrants. What's the solution according to the globalists? Yes - more globalisation and more immigration.
Do you think the rest of the world should adopt an economic system which is dependent on immigration? Would that model work better overall than each country aiming to become independent and self-sufficient?
Britain hasn't become 10% less productive in material terms overnight. The currency has devalued due to speculators alone - nothing else has changed. We shouldn't allow issues as important as who makes our laws to be influenced by speculators. Besides a currency devaluation gives us an advantage that many countries with stagnant economies in the Eurozone would beg for.
If it really bothers you, why not write to your MP asking them to pass a law pegging the pound to the dollar like the Chinese do (notice how they artificially undervalue their currency to remain competitive) - then we can ignore the speculators and give investors the stability they desire.
Personally I don't spend a large % of my income on imported goods - it's better for our economy if consumers spend less on imports. The largest cost for many people is housing and hopefully Brexit will help fix that problem by making the UK a less attractive place for foreigners to live. It's inevitable there will be some pain from system changes as we transition to an independent country again, but in the long term it will be worth it.
This is a symptom of something more fundamental : that the governing / management class have no national loyalty and are primarily motivated by short-term profit. Let this be a lesson to anyone who invests their heart and soul into something they don't ultimately own.
How can we avoid these takeovers from happening? Do we need a British conglomerate that is too large to be taken over? Or should we keep our startups privately funded with our own national crowdfunding?
The only motive I can think for selling is that we may be at peak ARM as the global sales of most of the devices that contain ARM cores are peaking or post-peak, with the possible exception of ARM-based servers. Nevertheless ARM must have value as an ongoing cash-cow.
In the long term, I wonder if an open processor core design could potentially displace ARM in the drive to lower costs? Does ARM have anything like the same grip on it's licencees as the Wintel monopoly?
Like for like
When Windows RT devices stop receiving updates they wont cease functioning; they will just be at greater risk of remote exploits. Most no-name Android devices never received security updates at all. Apple iOS devices and many Android devices from big-name brands also only receive updates for a limited time. Likewise you can't install Linux on most Android or iOS-devices. So all these excuses to attack Microsoft should in fairness be directed equally at all these platforms.
@ Jason Bloomberg
"His statements do fit with leavers' views that this was some sort of war which they have won and a belief that we now get to set the rules everyone will play by."
Brexit is part of a struggle for freedom against the globalists who favour ever greater centralisation of power (in their hands). The EU is in constant consultation with corporate lobbyists, while the only people answerable to the electorate (MEPs) have no power to propose or repeal laws.
Please cite a reference for your claim that "leave" believes it can "set the rules everyone will play by".
An independent nation decides for itself - if the deal on offer is not good enough for us then we don't accept it. This is something we can't do in the EU.
Look at China - it has just ignored the Hague's verdict on it's sovereignty over the south China sea.
"Leavers seem to be expecting Merkel and friends to admit they were wrong, Brits are right, the EU project was all a huge mistake, they are ever so sorry about that, and will now do everything Britain asks."
Do you cite any evidence for this? Why would Brits blame Merkel rather than the EU?
Why would "leavers" think "Brits are right" when it was our own politicians that signed us up to the EU?
The EU isn't a mistake - it's a deliberate deceptive project to create a superstate and disempower the electorate.
The EU already made it clear pre-Brexit that it was no longer open to concessions with Britain, so all those saying we could "change it from within" were wrong - we've had decades to do that and little has changed.
"The Empire may have gone but our arrogance and supremacism never left us."
Speak for yourself - the reality is the opposite of your view: "independence" means rightfully taking power back. The EU now behaves like an empire - ruling over it's subordinate nations and robbing them of their former sovereignty.
If this project succeeds (and I hope it does), the next stage will be to optimise the design to increase the payload it can carry.
(1) Would using a launcher e.g. like EMALS make a significant reduction to the fuel load?
(2) Could oxygen be extracted from the atmosphere on the ascent (replacing the weight of used fuel) to minimise/eliminate carrying LOX for space flight? If this were possible, it would make sense to design the SABRE engine from the outset so that an air-supply can be fed back to the Skylon.
It probably helps that China is an authoritarian government which still has control over the banks...
No it probably helps that QR codes work on the 700+ million low-end smartphones currently in use in China whereas western banks assume all western consumers will just buy a new high end smartphone every 18 months to get NFC (I wont - so it will be at least 5 years before I buy a phone that has NFC).
"The UK can't develop world-leading research, without working with other countries""
So are you saying UK scientists can't collaborate without the EU? Does this mean there are no non-EU scientists in the UK? Why do we need to be part of the EU (which is really a project to create a European superstate without admitting that to the electorate) in order to collaborate?
""Are you suggesting that leaving the EU will free up enough funding for the UK to start a space programme?""
We could to some degree - it may not make economic sense to develop our own rockets now. Russia and India have space programmes, look at the size of their economies compared to the UK. How do they afford it?
""are you proposing we set up our own particle accelerator""
The LHC is primarily in Switzerland which is not in the EU and has cancelled it's application to join. Are you saying that outside the EU we cannot work with Switzerland, despite having contributed to the LHC funding?
"Begging the question" is not a logical fallacy itself but assuming an unproven statement to be true is.
Your link clearly shows the 1975 referendum asked if we wanted to stay in (not "join") the EEC because our politicians had already signed us up to it without a democratic mandate. The same applies to every European treaty signed since that takes more power away from member countries and hands that power to the EEC/EU/United States of Europe. The 1975 referendum did not affirm that the UK public wanted to give away their national sovereignty because that was not the question asked. Nor did it confirm that we wanted our universities and research institutions to be centrally funded from Europe. Nor did it confirm that we want a European army to eventually displace national armed forces, take control of our nuclear weapons and supplant our membership within NATO.
We should take this as a clear signal that the UK is not wanted in Europe. Rather than leave our scientists in limbo for 2+ years, the UK government needs to immediately expand UK science funding to take over from the European system and minimise disruption.
If Europe intends to block UK science funding that we are committed to paying into until Brexit, that is a good reason to NOT offer guarantees to European scientists currently based here. It's nothing personal - it's just politics. I look forward to when this period is over and the UK is back to funding it's own research again, and developing it's own talent.
This begs the question of why our politicians ever signed us up to Europe against the will of the people, when it is obvious that joining then leaving would cause such disruption when compared to not joining at all.
The UK is proof that free movement of labour doesn't work. When a foreign employee is taken on that puts pressure on the local infrastructure. Unless the employer is contributing enough in taxes to cover those costs (which might be hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay for new housing so the local population is not adversely affected, more capacity in public services and transport etc) then the new job is a net loss to the host nation. The employee and employer may benefit but overall the host nation does not, as the overall cost of living increases and the poorer members of society are most affected. That is why so many people across a wide section of society voted for Brexit - they're not stupid, they know they're worse off thanks to freedom of movement of labour in the EU.
The EU can either learn from this mistake and adapt or it will continue to fail and become more unpopular. The alternative is the UK can take the initiative by bypassing the EU and begin a new free trade agreement with interested partner nations, not necessarily restricted to Europe. You don't need free movement of people for free trade and capital movement. The EU knows this but is attempting to block the UK to justify it's own bureaucratic existence and maintain the heading for an EU superstate.
A sensibly run system would only permit an employer to take on a foreign worker if the local authority gave assurance there was sufficient free accommodation and capacity in public services to take them on.
Well why bother? Politicians always lie, Trump even admitted he was lying about the wall so that makes him the most honest of the pair. What a great choice of candidates you lucky Americans have. This year should be the best chance for an alternative political party to make some headway.
After we leave the EU and have a points based system, the category of migrants in the Calais camp will be automatically refused entry, and will have to return to their own country to find work. The burden of our dysfunctional ultra-liberal border policy will be gone and the rest of Europe will probably demand the same system.
Labour changing strategy
I seem to recall that at the start of the referendum campaign Labour presented a near-united pro-EU front with very few opposed. As the polls have progressed and Leave has picked up momentum, I've noticed more Labour supporters switching to a "pro-Europe anti-EU" stance, basically supporting UKIP in principle but never in person. Is this a form of damage control so they don't appear totally at odds with their traditional working class voters I wonder?
Did I miss something?
Has the result been fixed?
Some of you seem to think it's all over...
Outside of EU trade barriers we'll be able to import food cheaper from outside the EU. This would boost the economies of African countries and help stem the flow of migrants coming into Europe. Also the food types they produce overlaps more with our own produce, whereas EU farm produce are often competitors to our farmers.
But it seems that counter to their own interests, our farmer's votes are bought by EU subsidies.
So we must surrender our right to govern ourselves for all time because of one law on the presumption that our own politicians are incapable of passing an equivalent new law in Britain. Another irrelevant Remain so-called argument.
Quality of life = wealth / cost of living
If we optimised our lives for quality of life instead of wealth, people would be happier. The way to achieve this is with much reduced immigration and low house prices. Leaving the EU is a step in the right direction. The longer the government continue increasing our population to make the nation wealthier but more overcrowded, the more our quality of life will decline. Our relative position in economic terms doesn't improve quality of life, provided we don't let wealthy foreigners buy up our country. Service industry jobs also tend not to provide the same job satisfaction of manufacturing/creative jobs once did.
The majority of British people had a better quality of life before we joined the EU.
"We sometimes fail to remember this vote will have the most profound impact on Britain's relationship with Europe and the rest of the world. It can be easy to forget what damage has been done in pitting Brit against Brit and the toxic legacy which will endure."
I'm aware how vital Brexit is to our future. There is far more at stake than near-term economic issues - the EU is fundamentally undemocratic, overrules our right to govern ourselves, and has a history of deciding against our interests. A short term economic hit caused by speculators to an otherwise successful economy is a small sacrifice to regain our independence for future generations.
Sometimes those who are well-off forget that what is good for them can be bad for everyone else. The Eurozone has made it's weaker economies dependent on bail outs, while the free movement of workers has widened inequality by increasing profits and undercutting wages. Financial indicators are that a new recession is on the way. The only thing keeping the EU's head above water is the economies of it's stronger members like Britain. After a Brexit, other members will want to leave, so there will be uncertainty for any company thinking of relocating to the EU. Iceland and Switzerland have already withdrawn their applications for membership.
If you think that after a remain vote, Brit wont be pitted against Brit then you are very much mistaken. There will be nothing our government can do to address the fundamental and exacerbating problems caused by EU rules. If we have the misfortune to remain, Corbyn has said there can be "no upper limit on immigration from the EU", and the EU will start fining any member state that doesn't accept the quota of refugees they decide. With a recession coming, this is a perfect storm for chaos.
So none of these corporations invested in Britain before the EU existed? None of them invest in the multitude of other countries throughout the world outside the EU that have smaller economies than the UK?
If some companies move their HQ to the Eurozone that's overall better for us and the EU as it will relieve our overheated economy. We are overcrowded, have sky high property prices and employ over a million more EU citizens than the EU employs Brits. Meanwhile there is chronic youth unemployment in other parts of the EU. It would be better for us all if some major employers did relocate out of the UK.
Dad of student slain in Paris terror massacre sues Google, Twitter, Facebook for their 'material support' of ISIS
There is a constant battle between freedom and security. There are some people who would seek to use this event to institute new limits on freedom of speech to silence those they oppose. They probably have lists of thousands of accounts they want suspended, just waiting for new legislation to be passed.
I do listen to my brain - by every rational argument, there is no reason to surrender British sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
I have to assume you are joking, or do you really base your opinion on such strawman reasoning? No I don't think the EU are destroying the web, and I don't think the web was a British invention.
Switzerland in not the EU, thus CERN (where the WWW was invented) proves that co-operation between European nations works just brilliantly without the rip-off EU parliament granting us permission from on high to co-operate. I fail to see how prominent scientists with reputations to uphold support the remain camp based on invalid reasoning.
If you vote to remain then you agree that someone who is unlikely to be British or live in Britain should have authority to overrule our parliament and dictate our laws. That viewpoint is contrary to the constitution of our and most other countries, it is treasonous.
Labour say the leave campaigners want to start a new British Empire! The beeb are sure this will please Vladimir Putin - he's ready for the next Charge of the Light Brigade ... like everything else they say it's all true. #STAYIGNORANT
How likely do you think it is that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are going to protect workers' rights?
I think you are being over presumptive (even prejudging) other's political stance. Anyway, if we get Brexit, UKIP will no longer have a purpose and Nigel Farage will probably retire from politics.
Workers rights are complex issue. IMO exploitative schemes like "Zero hours contracts" should not have been allowed except for a limited time to get the economy out of a recession. OTOH, the EU has enforced other "rights" we never wanted such as unnecessarily long paid maternity leave for partners - which are a problem for small and struggling businesses.
Obviously opinion varies widely on this issue, but if opinion varies across EU "states" then tough - all EU states must implement the same law even if the majority in one "state" don't like it.
Any reader who's still undecided should definitely NOT base their decision on this MINOR issue!!!
Brexit is about National Sovereignty and independence - who governs us, how accountable they are and can they be removed from power? These are the important issues - that people have struggled and fought for for centuries. Handing our sovereignty to an EU superstate is literally treason.
After Brexit the law that protects food names will still apply in the EU. If we want an equivalent law in Britain all we have to do is lobby our MPs to propose such a law - something our MPs can do but which MEPs cannot because the EU is undemocratic.
"EPO appears to be nothing to do with the EU"
Correct - I didn't say the European Patent Office is related to the EU, but that it's censoring is deceptive LIKE the EU's claim to be democratic and uphold free speech (it does the opposite - the lawmakers are not elected. You are entitled to freedom of speech - caveat "within the law" = any law can override it = you DON'T have freedom of speech).
It is a FACT that the EPO censor internet access.
In my opinion the EU is deceptive because it does not uphold what it claims to be.
"The EPO is F** all to do with the EU."
Correct! It is a European institution as was stated.
I would like to know in what manner you think I am ignorant since what I said is true.
"Tosh. The whole point of human rights conventions is that laws can't over-ride them."
It's a FACT that people are imprisoned in EU countries for expressing their opinion. Please go and research the issue.
Censoring sites it doesn't agree with is akin to the practices of an authoritarian regime not a democratic, free society.
Like all the double-talk around the EU and it's related institutions, it's all deception - those in power can't be removed by the electorate and they do as they please. The same types of people are responsible for filtering political sites they don't like in UK schools and libraries. Clearly these hypocrites are out in force voting on Reg comments in favour of the EU.
EU human rights laws are irrelevant since other laws contradict them and rulings depend on the opinion of a judge who will usually convict anyone they don't agree with. We don't have true freedom of speech in the EU. Numerous EU citizens have been convicted for expressing fact-based opinions of controversial subjects that some in authority don't like. If we don't vote for Brexit then the authoritarian European legal system will eventually be imposed on the UK.
And if there are tariffs imposed on UK built Nissans, where do you think Nissan might build its next model?
That depends on where it sells most of it's cars. If the majority are sold in the UK, then it would make economic sense to stay here.
If the EU was mad enough to introduce tariffs the British government could subsidise car exports using the income made from taxing cars imported from the EU. Since we are a net importer of cars from the EU, Britain would make more income from tariffs than the EU.
My favourite.. we can close the borders if we vote out... no, no we can't
Of course any independent country can close it's borders if it so wishes. No post-Brexit government would go that far, but they will have the power to control all migration into the UK.
This idea is only slightly less delusional than the idea that Berlin and Paris will allow Europe financial affairs to be run from outside the EU.
"Berlin", "Paris" and "Frankfurt" will remain subservient to the EU so can't decide anything. The EU's financial affairs aren't run from London. If the EU's answer to Brexit is to issue more red tape it will make the EU even less attractive.
This thread has the situation reversed: Britain is a major net importer from the EU and many other nations, hence Britain is a DESIRABLE trading partner and is in a stronger position to negotiate trade deals. Not to mention more Europeans work in Britain than the reverse, so they are dependent on our economy for their income.
Post Brexit, Britain will be £18 million a day better off and will only have one layer of government bureaucracy to support. With no UK contribution to prop up the EU the burden for other nations will increase. Imposing tariffs on the UK would be economic suicide for the Eurozone. The loss of exports to the UK would likely tip the Eurozone back into recession.
Tariffs would not be good for Britain either, but there would be an economic incentive for us to buy more British made cars. Likewise its easy enough for us to buy cars from anywhere in the world - my car was made in India and was notably cheaper than a European made car, irrespective of trade tariffs. Brits could easily grow accustomed to buying cheaper cars from outside the EU.
I wonder if Bill Gaede's rope hypothesis can explain this observation?
"The arguments of the Pro campaigners just add to the sentiment that I wasn’t welcome in the first place."
Brexit is about our relationship with the political institution of the EU, not with European people or nations.
"when I interject that the former size of your Empire isn’t relevant anymore, your hurt pride"
I don't think many British people are "proud" of Empire or "hurt" by your suggestion.
"How do you justify colonising from Cape to Cairo?"
How can the EU justify seizing political control of member states without a democratic mandate?
Besides most European countries were also colonisers, and were primarily motivated by economic reasons.
"nowadays you seem to hold quite strong views about foreigners and that they should stay in their home countries"
Inside or outside of the EU views would still be divided, but being outside the EU gives Britain control of immigration. This matters more to many voters than having "greater influence in Europe".
"It’s your government, who use cheap rightwing messages"
Actually our government has used taxpayer's money to spread pro-EU propaganda to every household.
There's nothing "cheap" or "uneducated" about wanting independence from a political union that we never voted for (we only voted for a free market), that is anti-democratic and run by a self-serving appointed elite, whose excessive regulations and taxes have made Britain overwhelmingly poorer, and taken away powers to effect change that benefits us.
"Austerity measures and the demise of the NHS have nothing to do with a few million foreigners taking your jobs and benefits"
With the money we spend on the EU, the national budget would go a lot further.
"largely generated by a hasty invasion of Iraq in 2003"
The 2003 invasion did cause a wave of refugees, but the present wave of refugees are caused by recent conflicts that have many causes. The downfall of Libya was assisted by many EU countries.
"Do you still wonder about the success of Polish and Romanian builders?"
Not really - a British wage is worth a lot more to them than a Polish or Romanian wage is to a Brit.
"The lack of social mobility is strong in Great Britain"
How is the EU going to fix this? The EU creates inequality by funding a large and excessively well paid, unelected bureaucracy.
Perhaps if fewer foreign students went to British universities, more British students would have an opportunity?
"a short-term recession would just be an inconvenience"
Why would freeing ourselves from a counter-productive political union provoke a recession, provided we remain open to free trade? The threats seem to come from people with a vested interest in centralising political control. If Britain's economy was more successful outside the EU it would prove to other Europeans that they would also be better off independent.
"At least, there, I won’t be shut up as a foreigner without a right to vote."
This is a nonsensical argument coming from someone educated to PhD level! Fair is fair - we can't vote in your referendum and you can't vote in ours.
You've been granted the opportunity to express your view to a wide audience here. There are many who disagree with you who would relish the opportunity to be read so widely.
"For me, the EU is not about the money ... It is a model how people can work together "
Like it or not, money matters and a grossly inefficient institution should be subject to some competition. The higher goals you mention are global issues not local European issues.
The EU is a hierarchical structure that dictates laws that take precedent over national sovereignty, it's not a forum for equal partner nations to agree common policies.
"Is the Brexit debate yet another move to distract from the real issues in the country?"
As a member of the EU, we are powerless to affect the real issues facing our country. Brexit would take that power back.
"These problems cannot be tackled with national pride and strong emotion. We have all got to look forward, not backward."
Your appeal to abstract emotional concepts is not a valid argument. You appear to suffer from a delusion that the only political path we can choose is to surrender to centralised control. I would prefer to regain more control over my own future in exchange for less influence over others.
"you need to work on yourself"
The feeling is mutual.
I can understand that a company the size of Samsung must really struggle to write drivers for it's hardware 10 months after an Operating System has been released. Clearly this has nothing to do with profit motive and Samsung would just love their customers to upgrade to Windows 10 for free than buy a new PC.
Nothing wrong with StackExchange...
.. it's a source of good solutions to common problems which saves time and makes developers more efficient. As long as people understand the code they're using what's the issue? People will always encounter issues that aren't on StackExchange that they have to solve using their own initiative.
The next bond...
The media keep hinting the next bond could be a female, or black, etc. but what about ageist discrimination? Why not bring back Roger Moore or Sean Connery? With one of those DARPA exo-skeletons and a viagra pill they could bring some silver Bond action back to the silver screen.
Where is this all headed?
The internet giant wants to get rid of password logins...
Games and basic tools would be run even if only a low trust score was achieved
Can't people see their masterplan is to de-personalise your mobile device and transition to Android-in-the-cloud? They want you to be able to use any Android device to log-in to your Android-cloud session with private cloud apps tied to your ID, but local device Apps shared to anyone. The strategy is to bind users to Android so it becomes socially-awkward to switch to a different platform, particularly one with better security.
Does a virtual phone appear when you need to answer a call?
Look on the bright side...
.... at least it makes boiling water cheaper.
"pretending to understand it better than genuine experts"
because Climategate proved the "genuine experts" are totally impartial and their research funding in no way depends on maintaining the climate change agenda.
Why are Windows 10 updates any different from earlier Windows? Updates don't change the Windows APIs that applications are programmed to.
If they introduced a major revision to Windows that affected application compatibility, they would provide an upgrade tool for checking compatibility, and offer to run older application in compatibility mode.
Is the Pi zero board layout published under an open licence? If the components are all off-the-shelf, what's to stop anyone making compatible variants with ethernet / wifi / 1Gb RAM / extra or full-size USB / HDMI ports etc?
Re: Why is "Call me Dave" Cameron telling me what to think?
You mean you missed it?
The referendum in 1975 (not 1972 - that's when they signed the treaty before consulting the public) was to join a free market ("European Economic Community" / EEC) - not a political union. Since then they have tip-toed towards political union without consulting the public, signing over sovereignty to what has become the EU in stages.
There is more democracy in the EU's little finger than there is in the UK.
I disagree, the roles of the elected members are reversed. In Britain's unelected House of Lords, the Lords cannot propose laws, only debate them and vote to pass or block laws passed by the democratic House of Commons. The EU parliament is the reverse, unelected political appointees draft new laws and the democratic MEPs get to debate and vote on passing/rejecting laws = the equivalent role to the House of Lords.The EU parliament is based on the model of the USSR.
In Britain a member of public can consult their representative MP who can propose a change to the law in the commons. In the EU, you cannot ask your MEP to propose a change to EU law. On top of this, even if the public could change EU laws, they would need substantial influence to convince the majority population of the EU to support the change.
Brexit is a no-brainer
It's wrong that tax payer's money was spent spreading government propaganda supporting the Remain camp - but if we sued the government the taxpayer would still be paying for it - that's injustice! Since they clearly don't feel bound by morals, we need a law preventing tax payer's money being used to bias public opinion. Hopefully their campaign will backfire as the majority of voters will resent being told what to think by the government.
The figures clearly show we would be better off economically outside the EU but in a free-market, even if we had to pay to be part of their so-called "free" market. Therefore the claim that it's "good for the economy, trade, business" to remain in the EU is wrong. We would remain part of the free market, but we would be freed from EU red-tape, so overall Brexit would be better for the economy.
The Remain camp continue scaremongering with lies that assume we would have to leave the free-market. We wont leave the free-market because we voted in a referendum to join the free-market in 1972. The Remain camp are even suggesting there could be war between European nations if we leave! Are they considering starting a war with Norway, Iceland or Switzerland? Clearly there are no genuine reasons for us to Remain, and there was no genuine reason to join which is why we were denied a referendum on joining in the first place.
If the EU started playing silly-buggers to block us from their "free" market, or tried to force an unequal levy on us, then it would be high time to bypass the EU and form an international coalition to start a new international free-market. One which doesn't involve surrendering sovereignty but is based on mutual agreement between equal partner nations. One which is not bound by geographical borders but invites trade with any nation. One which does not levy large payments to join but instead is operated efficiently at the lowest cost and a balanced budget. One which does not seek to use access to markets for political control.
Finally, although economics are important, real quality of life is what matters most . Higher income does not equate to improved quality of life if the downsides associated with the economic gain outweigh what the additional wealth can buy. If we leave the EU and regain control of our borders, this wont fix our problems overnight, but it will stop issues like the housing crisis from deepening for reasons beyond our control. EU membership is not much benefit overall if goods traded with Europe are a few pennies cheaper but the cost of housing has risen 200-300% beyond what is affordable due to the huge influx of migrants over the last decades.
Re: One way to get the punters to upgrade!
It's one small cock up for Microsoft,
One giant sales boost for the PC industry.
Re: Trump? Who's he?
1) He has enough money of his own that he can't easily be bought.
It used to be that politicians were mostly self-made, independently-wealthy people, meaning they were less likely to be "bought". However that's no guarantee as you have to look at someone's history to see how they came by their wealth and weather it was made by having certain connections. Trump may not be as clean and independent as you think.
Re-inventing the disk drive --> Magnetic scrolls
If magnetic disks are heading towards archival storage, maybe it's time to re-invent the disk drive by merging it with magnetic tape?
Magnetic tape heads can read multiple data tracks in parallel giving a higher data rate for a slower speed. Combining parallel head technology of tapes with mobile head technology from disk drives could achieve higher capacity than disks with a lower seek time than tape. The magnetic medium would be much wider than tape - like a magnetic parchment passing between two scrolls. However the scroll length would be short enough to keep the seek time to only a few seconds. The scrolls could be wound onto a single roll permitting them to be removable like a camera film. What could possibly go wrong?