If they've maintained the 'essential character' of the original
How come those modern minis are almost the size of a hummer, with apparently no sense of irony when they stick the badge on the back?
2248 posts • joined 20 Jul 2010
How come those modern minis are almost the size of a hummer, with apparently no sense of irony when they stick the badge on the back?
Even better than that, they could call one of these moons Bottom, since Uranus' moons ARE named after Shakespearean characters.
And the fact that we import around 40% of our food means the weak pound will make food prices go up.
Don't forget the WTO tariffs we'll be paying for all the food we import from Europe once we can't have free trade with the EU because we are 52% racist.
There IS a lack of social housing, entirely due to the sell-off of council houses, blaming this on immigration is daft.
Exactly. This is why the government should be spending on social housing, which if nothing else, is a short term investment to take people receiving housing benefit (which costs the state a lot of money) and put them into low-rent accommodation that they won't need benefits to live in.
Of course, if you look at where the housing benefit money actually ends up, then you'll realise why the Tories will never build social housing (hint to the slower reader: it's them and their donors)
Excuse me, sorry?
How did you get from one of the main arguments for brexit made by the UK's communities from the Inidan subcontinent, to 'don't vote Labour'?
Let me spell it out for you - one of the main reasons put forward for brexit in communities with a high 'ethnic' population was that immigration from the EU was unfair to people who wanted to immigrate from outside the EU. The oft-quoted hypothetical immigrant was the 'curry chef', because apparently we can't train people to make a proper curry in this country, so we have to import more of the relatives of the people who can make curry. This in itself is a totally ridiculous, and in no small part racist argument, but people in places like Birmingham seem to have bought it and voted for brexit. Given that the did so, by teh same (flawed) logic, Theresa May should be allowing more immigrants from India and Bangladesh, not fewer.
Of course, the whole immigration argument is a sack of massive bollocks, as is your assertion that this makes it a reason not to vote for the only realistic opposition to an increasingly out-of-touch and xenophobic Tory party. Or maybe you wanted UKIP? I hear they have leadership going cheap...
Well, apparently Ayn Rand called it a "magnificent job of theoretical exposition." Given that pretty much everything that Ayn Rand said was total egotistical bollocks along the lines of 'greed is good', I'd take that as an indication that this guy was talking bollocks too. Also he died in the mid '90s, so I'm not sure anything he said is necessarily still applicable to 21st century reality.
Economic growth is a metaphysical quantity and so is not likely constrained by a finite planet.
It may, or may not be thus. It does arise, however, from economic activity, which in the real world depends on the consumption of physical resources, such as coal, oil, minerals, cotton, wood, energy, etc. which are all of finite supply, to a greater or lesser degree (for example most metals are recyclable, but you'd be hard pressed to recycle coal once it has been burned, and all recycling consumes other resources such as energy).
6. We never lost it.
We never had it to start with, and if TPTB manage to grab a handful of it for themselves, they sure as hell aren't going to share it with those who swallowed the emotive but ultimately empty arguments of brexit and mistakenly voted for it.
We don't have an incease in poverty.
We have an increase in people relying on food banks to get them through the month. I'd call that poverty.
The current government also massively missed its targets to reduce child poverty (hint: it went up). So what did they do about it? They changed the metric by which they measure poverty, so that it couldn't be measured year on year. That's right out of Yes Minister, which was supposed to be satire, and not a how-to guide for Machiavellian arseholes.
Edit - oh, and I supposed the cuts of £30 a week to ESA for disabled people aren't driving them into 'inequality', and benefit sanctions aren't driving desperate people to suicide. Except that is exactly what is happening.
incentivise people not to have children
3. Watch the ageing population starve in their own homes and die in filth because there are not enough people of working age to look after them and support their pension funds.
4. Refuse to increase immigration to fill those roles because 'forriners takin our jobs innit'.
Profit."Take back control"
...I will demonstrate how 'trickle-down economics' really does work, despite the ample evidence that it just widens the divide between rich and poor.
The 'automation argument' is a massive straw-man argument. It's just not the point of universal income. Universal basic income as a concept is primarily there to provide a negative feedback so that the ultra-rich don't end up with all the money, lifting the poorest out of poverty, and actually stimulating the economy (because that those who work are guaranteed to have a disposable income).
At the moment, we have an increase in the numbers of people in poverty, while the richest in society enjoy massive wealth and luxury (and tax breaks) despite never having to work. Somehow, those at the top (with everything) are not viewed as freeloaders, whilst those at the bottom (with nothing) are.
Openretch should be dragged as far away from the grasping hands of BT execs as humanly possible. Only BT execs disagree...
The CTA between Ireland and the UK, AFAIK, means that you can travel between the two countries without a passport. However, you will still need some form of identity document when boarding a plane, and in practice, this is usually going to be your passport.
When entering the UK from Eire, depending on which airport you are flying onto and whether they can be arsed to route you through the right gate, you may find you don't go through passport control.
Every time I have flown to Dublin (which is quite a few as my partner used to live there), I have been routed through passport control. However, unlike UK airports, they are friendly, fast and efficient there. (cf the 30 minute hellqueue when entering the UK via Gatwick). Come to think of it, efficient and friendly is the experience I have had at most European airports. This probably tells you all you need to know about Ms May's border policies.
Think yourself lucky that you don't live in a 'cycling city' like Bristol where the cyclists bomb along on the pavements at 30 mph and pedestrians have to dodge out of the way. Nobody does anything about it, because the police are chronically underfunded, and the cyclist mafia have such a hold on the city council that a campaign for safe cycling would be political suicide.
It'll make you an unperson
"I've yet to see a successful prosecution," noted Twitter baiter Old Holborn told El Reg. "Plenty where the idiots plead guilty but no actual found guilty without rape threats."
Are you an idiot if you plead guilty to a crime you know you committed and for which the prosecution have the evidence to show you did? The alternative, of course, is to waste the time, resources and (tax-payers) money of the CPS on defending a case you know you are going to lose, and then probably face a stricter sentence / heavier fine that the one you would have got if you'd pleaded guilty right away.
This probably tells us more about the egotistical attitude of 'Old Holborn' than about the merits (or lack of) of the law as it stands.
No, they don't as it happens.
After all, I'm a living ancestor of all my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.
Can I have a go in your time machine then? I'm thinking of dropping Amber Rudd off in a Jewish community in Germany circa 1936 for a couple of years, so she can see first hand the logical conclusion of the sort of dangerous nonsense she has been spouting.
Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion.
Yes, other people who share you opinion are idiots too. Next time, before you start ranting against the ECHR, maybe you should actually read it. It is (in summary) actually quite short, and contains none of the nonsense you just spouted.
I've said it before and i will say it again, why do you need human rights, if you're not doing anything wrong?
Read a history book, you fucking dolt, and you'll find out why we have the European Convention on Human Rights, incidentally largely written by British lawyers.
If you need some more guidance, the bit you should be looking at is the bit right after the Weimar Republic...
If over 4 million people signing a petition for a second referendum had no effect, why do you think the Tories will give a tinker's cuss about this petition?
I thought from your previous posts you regarded the banks as capitalist pigdogs who would be first up against the wall? So surely it isn't a big problem that the spivs of the city won't be able to do business abroad?
Whilst it's true that I have no particular love for people who earn obscene salaries, essentially for knowing the right people, I'm also no so naïve as to think that strangling what is a noticeable part of the British economy isn't going to harm the treasury. You can be certain, that under a Tory government, the resulting cuts in funding, or increased taxes, won't hit the rich, they will be targeted as always at those who are least able to afford them.
In fact, we'll probably end up subsidising the city traders, out of general taxation, in order to keep them happy and in an attempt to prevent companies from moving to the continent (where they will be able to still trade tariff-free within Europe, as well as having 'all the advantages' of being able to trade with the rest of the world too).
That would pretty much be a game-breaker for multi-national banks etc.
Just as much as the loss of passporting rights to the EU, which we seem to be barrelling headlong into...
I don't believe she was ever a 'remainer', her ideas about robbing us of the Human Rights Act were always dependent on leaving the ECHR, which is a prerequisite for membership of the EU.
She took a gamble on pretending to be in the 'remain' camp so that if the vote went the way people didn't expect it to (as it did), she would be in a good position to take over from Cameron (as she did).
This is the opposite of the 'Boris gambit' which is to pretend to be pro-leave and expect to lose, in order to secure support from anti-EU elements of the Tory party in their next leadership election. This also explains why he didn't stand when Cameron resigned (he wasn't expecting the Brexit win, so didn't yet have all the pieces in place in order to be prepared to win).
Machiavellian bunch of parasites the lot of them, but as long as they control (or are supported by) large swathes of the mainstream media, they will remain in control of this country, robbing the poor and giving to the rich like an inverted Robin Hood (this also explains Michael Gove, and why he looks like the organs are on the outside)
6% customer churn in a quarter doesn't really sound that big to me.
Yeah, that's only 22% of your customer base leaving in a year. That's not a concern at all.
Job seekers allowance accounts for a relatively large portion of the benefits pie I get that.
No it doesn't, it accounts for about 3%
State pensions account for around 50%, but branding the elderly as scroungers doesn't play well at the ballot box.
The actual figures are trivially easy to find out to anyone who can be bothered, rather than swallowing whole the bullshit from the Daily Heil et al.
Because if I owned any businesses like those, I would both superglue in all keyboards and locktite the usb sockets. Possibly also shield the cables.
It's nice to know you have the budget to replace the entire machine when your el-cheapo USB keyboard fails then.
That entirely depends on your definitions of the words 'defined by an existing set of rules'. You are assuming that those rules are all well defined and that none of them contradict each other for starters.
I think the problem here might be the attempt to project formal logic onto the eldritch abomination that is the benefits system; dreamed up, and reshaped over years, by politicians, a group for whom internal consistency has never been a concept.
"The source of may problems has been the absence of a detailed view of how Universal Credit is meant to work"
Replace the words, "Universal Credit" with "Withdrawal from the European Union", and you have the title of the next act in this farce, where we watch those in power slowly steering this country in ever decreasing circles like an bath toy circling the plughole...
How about a nice game of tic-tac-toe instead?
As to the EU wanting to control every country... yup, they do, thats one reason to get out of it.
If by 'control every country', you mean have everyone play by the same rules, then yes. There has, however, been an awful lot of misinformation about what the EU does. That playing by the same rules applies to things like making sure that nobody cheats on trade rules and making sure that people respect the ECHR*, which is not a piece of EU legislation, but being a signatory to it is a prerequisite to EU membership. The ECJ** is the body that enforces this. Very few of our laws are 'dictated from Brussels' despite what loudmouthed bigots like Mr Farage would have you believe by shouting made-up statistics at you.
Incidentally, if you were to read the ECHR (in summary it's actually a fairly short document, so I'd advise everyone to do so), you might start to wonder why certain right-of-centre politicians are so dead keen on us not being a signatory to it, especially when you consider that it was largely British lawyers who drafted it in the first place to put in place a legal framework to prevent a repeat-play of the stuff that went on in the 1930s and '40s (and before that some of the stuff that the good old British Empire got up to too).
*The European Convention on Human Rights, not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds the Convention.
**European Court of Justice.
So Apple, which employs people, makes things of value that people want, is greedy
Yes, greedy, when it doesn't pay the same taxes on its profits as other companies based and operating in the EU. Nothing to do with 'leftism', and more to do with ensuring that all businesses play on a level field, and there is no cheating and collusion between multinationals and governments (AKA, in this case, state aid).
It is a fundamental requirement for all parties operating in a shared market to play by the same rules, otherwise the market is asymmetrical and doesn't work. IMHO, the EU is quite right in enforcing this. After all, that's what all those treaties everyone signed were all about, and in the long run, everyone does better if we cooperate rather than compete, due to the obvious* efficiencies gained from doing so.
*It should be fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that if you have 20 odd countries all doing the same thing, it is more efficient to do it once for all 20 with unified rules, rather than 20 times with a whole slew of rules and bureaucrats to make them work together
That is going to take 6 days, 5 hours, 7 minutes and 50.912 seconds to write a 32Gb flash disk. I can see how that might be problematic.
If your favourite team loses a football match 2-1
Let me stop you right there; if your favourite team loses a football match, guess what? It doesn't matter (except maybe to those with a financial interest in the team). It certainly doesn't result in 60 million people losing their EU citizenship, and associated rights. It doesn't result in a recession. It doesn't result in the rather amusing to watch disintegration of UKIP into a mess of warring factions (and over the longer term, the Tory party, and the 'Tory-lite' Blairite elements of the Labour party).
Unlike your football match, the EU referendum has real, and negative, results. The fact that those who were busy loudly denying there would be any such negative results have now quietly slunk away (in in some cases decided to hide behind ridiculous facial hair - I'm looking at you Gove) only serves to illustrate this all the more.
Maybe if those who allowed themselves to be convinced that 'Brexit' was such a great idea had stuck to the racist chants on the terraces, we'd all be better off.
Try the miniscule "give me the patches I actually wanted" link underneath the gargantuan "swallow my Win10 whole" advert that pops up in your windows update...
Shirley you're not telling me that you can't sort 7 billion+ people into 16 neat little groups that are at the same time both meaninglessly broad, but also usefully specific?
Which is ridiculous because Maggie at least understood basic science.
* Well, I hope so
Given that she had a biochemistry degree, yes...
It doesn't have to be useful, just expensive.
hey, lets down vote this guy just to be ironic.
I down-voted you for the sake of meta-irony. All the cool-kids will be doing it soon.
Tony also made it illegal to sell grey squirrels.
More to the point, it is illegal to release grey squirrels into the wild. This means that if you accidentally capture a squirrel, for instance in a rodent trap intended to catch rats, you legally have to destroy it. You also have to do this in a humane way, or you get prosecuted for animal cruelty. This happened to one man who knew he couldn't release the squirrel, so despatched it in the most humane way he could think of by drowning it:
And access to a solicitor & legal advice? How would that be maintained on the street?
Do you get those if you've not been arrested?
There's a big distinction between questioning people and arresting them. Sure, you could have a lawyer present every time you interact with the police, but you might find that the only benefit is to your lawyer. As I understand it, if you are not arrested, you are under no obligation to tell the police anything anyway.
On the whole, I think BWCs are a very good thing.
They keep the police honest (they have been shown to reduce the number of complaints of heavy-handedness against the police), and they are also useful in gathering evidence, especially when a crime is in commission.
After all, video evidence of a crime being committed stands up much better in court than first-person testimony from a police officer, and isn't subject to the human flaws of imperfect recall. This can also be valuable in the sadly all-too-common domestic violence cases. Where an officer attends a report of a DV attack (for instance a man beating his partner), the video evidence can show the injuries a victim may have received, without later having to rely on a combination of doctor's reports and dragging the victim through court as a witness, a process criminologists refer to as 'revictimisation'.
"Though you have to wonder why Labour collectively abstained in the last vote regarding this bill in parliament. "
My understanding is that Labour are not opposed to the bill in principle - after all it is nominally about regulating the investigatory powers of the police and spooks. By voting against it in the first reading, they would have given the impression of being against law and order, which would have given 'Call me Dave' ammunition for his childish attacks on the Labour leader during PMQs, and also given the right-wing press (also known as the mainstream press) a field day.
What they did, quite rightly IMHO, is say that they cannot support the bill unless several problems with it are addressed. By doing so, they have allowed it to reach this stage, where an independent review can be made.
If this review makes recommendations, especially those concerning basic human rights such as the right to privacy, and suitable amendments are not forthcoming from Ms May et al, then fully expect them to vote against it in the next reading.
The thing to remember is that the Tories (currently*) have an absolute majority, so in order to bring the bill down, Labour will need to convince not only the other parties, but also a portion of the Tory party to vote against the bill. The best way to do this would be to go through the due process of having the bill examined, and fault found with it, thereby putting forward a strong argument for voting against it. If the govt. then get it through with a slim majority and the Lords vote it down (as they almost certainly will), then there is a stronger argument against using the Parliament Act to force it through.
All of this bypasses the point that some sort of legislation is required to properly regulate what the spooks and the Peelers are up to, rather than leaving them with the blanket 'emergency powers' they currently have.
*This may of course change, if certain serious allegations of electoral irregularities are found to be with substance.
You are a Fortean Times reader, AICMFP.
Sadly, can't do that with modern 'ergonomic' keyboards, as the keys are all different sizes and shapes. No more spelling the longest single word insult you can think of with no repeated letters on the top row of a coworker's keyboard...
I think the best one 'we' came up with was 'dickbreath'
1) Connected medical device such as a blood glucose monitor with a single, or small number, of secured users
2) All your medical data 'in the cloud', under the control of whoever the government of the day decides to contract it out to. No control over access - you're unlikely to even know who has access, let alone be able to control it. Security is a single-point-of-failure for everyone's data, so a large, juicy target for anyone who wants to harvest that data for nefarious means.
Number 1 is fine, number 2 most definitely is not. Trying to equate the two things is, at best, highly deceptive.
"Ignoring the facts, I think that e-cigarettes are almost as bad as the real thing..."
...to start expecting evidence-led legislation from our government.
Only legislation based on dogma and pandering to private interests is allowed.
Interesting. Since you raise the issue of thalidomide, presumably, you are aware that the drug thalidomide is an enantiomeric compound that has only one active isomer. Presumably you also know that due to the cost involved, the other isomer (thought to be inactive simply because it hadn't been tested) wasn't removed from the mixture when sold. You would also know that it was this 'inactive' isomer that turned out to be teratogenic (i.e. caused birth defects). You would also know that this was all at a time where new drugs were not routinely tested for their effect on unborn foetuses.
Now, do you think that these decision were made by scientists, or by a businesspeople and politicians?
So, I 'see' your smug, and raise you a 'do your research'.
These aren't problems with GM, though, they are problems with multinational organisations. Monsanto could, in fact, have exactly the same practices with non-GM varieties which they have bred.
The issue has been deliberately conflated with GM to influence hearts and minds, but the issues are not actually linked in any way.
sudo killall -9 Autopilot