Re: That stadium...
Come come now.
121 posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
Come come now.
What evidence, specifically, would you like?
What's wrong with middlemen? Why shouldn't they get paid for their services? As a number of people here point out, you could just contact the hotel directly, but people still choose to use them, so they must be providing a useful service.
The parity clause is not obviously anticompetitive. If hotels were able to charge less on their own site, they would always have an incentive to do so. Once word got round that this was happening booking.com (and all other comparison sites) would be finished, as people would looking for a hotel on the comparison site, and then go to the hotel site to book. Having no comparison sites is not good for competition or choice.
However, it would be better if there were competition amongst comparison sites. Hotels should be able to offer different deals to different comparison sites (which would likely simply reflect the different charges - they wouldn't have any other incentive to offer different prices). In other words, booking.com's proposed solution seems like a fair one.
Well if there was any sleight of hand there (and there wasn't) it would mean that the increase in income was understated as it would make the dollar number look larger in 1935. That wouldn't really serve the purposes of the writer.
Can I just say what a nicely written report that was - objective, informative and concise. The best report about this incident that I've read. Nice work.
"WTF? The Transport Secretary would prefer everything just carried on as normal during a major systems failure?"
I don't think he said that, did he? I think he'd prefer it that the system didn't go down in the first place. Wouldn't you? Sure, it's not the cleverest or calmest of responses, I'll grant you. But it's probably better not to over-react to an over-reaction.
A statement being one-sided is not evidence it is wrong. I've found the statements about CIA torture from various UK news agencies particularly one-sided since the report was published. I find physicist' statements about gravity one-sided.
It's interesting how you easily dismiss 'lots of articles from various UK news agencies' when you they don't suit your narrative, whilst accepting the torture report completely readily. Dismissing or downplaying evidence that you dislike whilst accepting and exaggerating the importance of evidence that you do sounds a lot like bias to me.
Yeah. People don't like change. That's how UKIP happens.
I balance probabilities - it's the best we can all do. As you seem to have some strong opinions, presumably you're gaining information from some propaganda and agenda-free source. On what basis have you decided that the sources I'm looking at are propaganda, whilst the sources you're looking at are not?
It's difficult to tell whether it's lunacy or calculation, but in this case I rather fancy it's calculation. Putin is aware of the paranoia of the Russian people (amply encouraged by his propaganda). He's seeking to exploit that.
It's worth reflecting on that. Those who are the most paranoid are those who are, ironically, most easily exploited. Critical thinking is good. Paranoia and overreaction are not.
This would be the same royal family that bans cinemas? Say it with me now H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y!
I'm not sure if you missed the point of the above comment or not...it wasn't a political comment.
...is to make yourself ripe for satire.
Andy very welcome it is too.
I'm afraid Lewis Page has deliberately misled and really played to the commentard orchestra in this place. Look at his part:
"So there you have it. In the view of the ISC - and evidently, the view of the British spooks - US internet companies are under an obligation of some kind to monitor their users for evidence that they are about to commit acts of terrorism. At the moment, indeed, in the view of the British spook community, such firms are a "safe haven for terrorists".
The interpretation that the ISC and spy agencies are under an obligation to monitor their users is entirely Lewis Page's. The report report simply notes that they don't feel themselves under any obligation, and what the consequences could be (it even carefully notes that they're unintended)
Lewis then goes on to say:
"The British intelligence community also believes that the Prime Minister should "prioritise this issue"
Thus suggesting that "this issue" refers to the monitoring of users. In fact, in the report, it refers to warrants not being complied with by US companies.
Well done Lewis. The swivel-eyed commentards here will love you.
Not an MI6 report. Can you read?
I'll just call it the 'zed' launcher, if you don't mind.
I don't think so. Windows 8 has potential as a tablet OS. I like active tiles and when you learn the gestures it's quick and easy to navigate in touch mode. The irritation is that it has to jump to the non-touch friendly desktop for some applications and even OS functions. Sometimes, It's Microsoft's fault - changing the default browser, for example, disables the internet explorer app (Why???!!!!). It feels a bit half-baked (well when did Microsoft ever actually, you know, finish the job?).
I use Windows 8 on the desktop as well, and fixing that with Classic Shell makes a nice OS that can just stay in desktop mode all the time. It's too little Metro that's my problem, not too much desktop. It's not beyond the wit of man to have both!
If Microsoft were actually an intelligent company (I know...) then they would make a Windows 8 which could operate entirely in the desktop or entirely in 'Metro', with the ability to flip for hybrid devices. There really is logic in having two UIs on hybrids. But giving customers options and letting them choose is not something that ever seems to occur to Microsoft.
The tweet says '3 landings'.
"If you actually check the record, The vast majority of plots foiled have been stings where the deluded "terrorists" were recruited and groomed by law enforcement, then arrested by same at the scene of the act of "terrorism". "
I'm very interested in this. Do you have any links to support this claim?
Some believe that the Microsoft association was damaging the Nokia brand even before they dropped the name:
Microsoft seem to be oblivious to the fact that their brand is, well, hated.
To be fair, we all moan about our jobs.
No pun intended.
Well done. I love a good historical joke. Have an upvote.
I agree, but sadly I don't think it's his citizens' secrets that Putin's worried about. In fact, I think he'd rather like to know them himself.
I love that you can't spell 'qwerty'!
If your implication is that Russia can get past this, I hope you're right. Nothing in their past history, sadly, suggests that they will.
I lived in Russia. They have an exceptional fondness for the 'strong' leader. They love it when their country feels 'strong'. They associate periods without a 'strong' leader with periods of chaos and weakness. My own take on this is that the actions of the 'strong' leader are the cause of the chaos by stunting the development of anything more stable. You can't have the rule of law, for example, when the leader can't afford to have impartial judges around.
The behaviour of the Russian political system has basically been the behaviour of an addict - they get by, but they never find the strength to go through cold turkey to a better life.
Russia is increasingly descending into that combination of scary and ridiculously comical that all authoritarian states eventually become.
Actually, it would take him 72 seconds.
That's right. All economists are part of the conspiracy. Physicists do the same thing with gravity.
That's a misunderstanding. The fourth drug store will only enter the market if it's the most profitable thing that the entrepreneur can do with her time and capital. Otherwise, she'll just take those somewhere else. The point is not that everyone gets ground down to the edge of starvation, as you put it, but that capital and skills move to where they're most useful - without infinite resources, that doesn't imply low returns.
It's an interesting take from someone who finds the current system ideologically unpalatable, by the way. The usual criticism is that the owners of capital get too much. Your criticism seems to be that they get too little.
I understand the sentiment behind this and many other posts here, but the fact is that it *is* news. I agree that it's got nothing to do with his abilities to run a business, and whatever he does behind closed doors is his business. But many people don't agree, and it's still seen as abnormal behaviour. Imagine a scenario where Tim Cook walks into a theatre with his arm around his wife. Then imagine he walks into a theatre with his arm around his boyfriend. Which one gets flashed around the world?
He has to come out publicly so that he can go into that theatre with his partner. It's newsworthy because it's still so rare in more 'macho' walks of life like sport and CEOs. It's also not an easy thing to do, but it serves as an inspiration to others.
If hearing this story isn't interesting for you, fine. But it will continue to be interesting to the press until there are so many Tim Cooks that it's irrelevant. This Tim Cook has added one more to the list. He should be applauded for it.
You don't have to read, much less comment on, the story.
I have a Samsung phone, but I can't find any particular reason why I'd chose a Samsung over anything else next time round. That's Samsung's problem in a nutshell.
Much fun as the righteous anger here is, it's all based on a misunderstanding. The value of a business is determined by its profits - not its past profits, but its *future* profits. Therefore, the value of a company is always based on the market's estimate of what future profits will be. When news comes along that changes those expectations (which are largely informed by the company's own estimates of its future profits) the value of the company changes. Where's the evil?
A meaningless number. If I borrow a £1 million and then put £1 million then put it in the bank, gross debt has gone from £0 to £1 million. Net debt, however, is still zero.
Actually, mercantalism ended because everyone realised that it doesn't work. It was founded on the belief that trade was a zero-sum game: in order for me to win, someone else has to lose because there's a fixed amount of trade to go round. A little thought experiment will tell you that this is nonsense. If one country grabbing more of world trade makes it richer then one city grabbing all that (fixed amount of) trade should make that city very rich. Then one street in the city grabs all that trade and because fabulously rich. Then one house in that street etc.
It's not a zero-sum game. 2 people trading makes both of them better off - that's why we do it. Mercantalism is not a stage in a country's development. It's always a bad idea.
I've got an idea for a new kind of payment method. You only need to carry around a small plastic card - hopefully wallet makers will make wallets with special pockets to carry them. The cards are cheap to produce and can be given to customers for free They're small and flat, and a little bit flexible so they're easy to carry and pocket. They're waterproof and don't require charging or batteries. They've got great security features - they're worth nothing in themselves, and quickly be cancelled if they're lost. You can put a chip in them so they'll do NFC just like a phone. As they'll have your name on them, you could even use them for non-photo ID. You don't need to faff around with an app any more - you can quickly whip one of these out and pay for anything.
I think I'm going to be a billionaire.
I think you made that up.
Were they 'destructive to society'? How easily you can forget the years of economic growth before the crash. Crashes are part of the economic cycle. They've always happened, and they always will. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you a book. Economics can reasonably be judged a success if the progress between crashes is greater than the crash - and that's been the case for a very long time.
But yes, I agree that our economic goals - or should I say our demands on economists - are both unattainable and mutually exclusive - which is exactly my point that choices have to be made, instead of naively believing that you can have everything.
Everyone wants a system which delivers wealth, equality etc. There are some people in the world, let's call them pragmatists, who understand that there are trade offs and you can't have everything. The perfect economic system doesn't exist, as perfect things tend not to (apart from Sherlock, obviously). That's not to say that we shouldn't aim to improve things, just that it's sensible to start any discussion by deciding what your priorities are, going for those, and realising that you're going to have to lose other things in order to achieve those priorities.
Blaming 'the system', 'corporations' big this, big that etc. is all terrific fun, but can you seriously believe its that simple? What miracles do you actually expect from economists? They can't deliver what you're expecting: and neither can you or anyone else.
...you really need to go back and learn some GCSE economics. A market doesn't simply die when there's no profit to be made. What happens is that loss-making producers leave the market, reducing supply so that prices increase to the point where the remaining suppliers start to make sufficient profits to stay in the business ('normal' profits in economics speak).
It is possible that the high end Android market will come down to just one surviving business which still won't be able to charge enough to make a profit - but I sincerely doubt that will happen - there's simply no precedent for that.
The membrane coating that wears away bit doesn't seem to add up. Since the vessel is using it to steer, what happens when it wears away? This sounds like a one-shot device like, say, a torpedo, not a submarine.
America has 97 guns per person?! It's worse than I thought.
You sound like you've met someone who's been shot and says 'yes but my arm's bruised, and that could turn out to be just as bad'. The UK's not perfect, but where is? The comment you just made could now have you arrested in Russia. I'll bet you any amount of money that you don't get arrested in the UK, and never will do. Will you take the bet?
Comments like this trivialise important issues, and sound a lot like self pity.
The Isle of Dogs has service. Although there are a lot of valid arguments in these comments, the Isle of Dogs has awful ADSL, so this must be a genuine improvement to some people around here.
It always amazes me that no one's taken up the obvious business opportunity of a wealthy part of London with high density housing and awful broadband, by providing some sort of wireless service. Hyperoptic are slowly fibring up the big blocks but that's a slow process given interminable negotiations with building freeholders. More to the point, it amazes me how many swish new blocks are built with just copper wires.
You mean wrong?
Are you suggesting that having children should make you immune from going to prison? It's a serious question - I don't understand the logic of what you're saying. In what context would it be admissible for someone who has broken the law to be locked up if they have children?
As far as I know, every American President (and every leader of every other country in history) has sent to prison people who have children.