"it helps to keep the monopoly's commission at bay". Just what commission does the monopoly possess?
116 posts • joined 29 Dec 2007
Following the damning report on the F35, and the truly horrifying cost overruns, what if tht US decided to can the whole thing. Those of a certain age will remember the TSR2 F111 debacle. An incomming Labour government cancelled the TSR2 project on the promise of cheap and better F111s. The TSR2 project was not only cancelled, but all the design dat was destryed, all the jigs were destroyed, all completer aricraft, part completed an parts were destroyed utterly. They were burned. Then - the F111 was cancelled.
Move forward 40 odd years and what if the F35 gets the chop. The US can survive withouit it. The Marines would like it, but not essential. The Navy Has both better and cheaper alternatives. Where does that leave thE UK. Both carriers are nearly useless without the F35. Extend the takeoff area and non STOVOL could takeoff, but without an angled flight deck there is no feasable way they could be recovered. The entire deck would have to be cleared to recover a plane. The reason the US won at Midway was because the |Japanese carriers, sorry I foret the names, had cleared their decks to recover planes, so were defenceless when the US attacked.
But wait, it gets worse. As I have mentioned before, without a catapult launcer the carrier has no long endurance AWACS. A carrier group without AWACS is just target practise.
These have been illegal for a number of decades, at least four. If you have any then your stuff is truly anchient. The plastic collars, together with wall sockets are specifed so that no electrical contact is made while any mtal part of the prongs are contactable. This regulation came about after an old lady was electorcuted trying to insert a plug. She was trying to guide the plug in by feeling the prongs.
I too was at school during the Cuban missile crisis. This was boarding school in England, just close enough to London for death to be certain, but not merciful. There was an early warning radio in the Bursar's office. All the time it went beep, beep, we knew it was working, and all the time it did not scream we knew we were not do die, at least not today. Our air raid drill was more realistic, we were to go to the chapel and ask forgiveness for whatever part we had played, by commission, or omission, in bringing about the destruction of God's creation.
In the UK I am sure it all depends on your contract of employment, including any implied and understood terms on your engagement. If, when you were engaged, you were told we have a remote working policy, then that becomes a term of your contract. The employer cannot arbitrarily change your contract of employment any more that any other contract. A breach of contract is a breach of contract. Of course enforcing your rights may be a bit difficult.
Most posters will not remember the Cuban missile crisis; I do. I was at boarding school at the time and there was an early warning radio in the Bursars office. I went beep, beep, beep just to signal that it was getting a signal. At the four minute warning at would have screamed an alarm, the school bell would have sounded and we were all instructed to make our way to the school chapel. The school was close enough to London that we would all have died in the first strike, just not mercifully quickly. Living through that changes something inside. This is no joking matter. Trump is insane.
I have recently moved from Lincolnshire, an area that voted to leave. There is a large Polish community there with the inevitable friction with the locals. This I am sure is what led to the leave vote. But we need these people. We have an ageing population. The baby boomer generation are now getting past retirement and into requiring more care from the NHS. We need an infusion of young blood in the form of fit, working, tax paying young men to re-balance the population. Quite apart from the fact that without these men willing to do the hard agricultural work that the locals are largely either unwilling or unable to do then the cabbages would not be planted, would rot in the fields and would have to be imported, most likely from Poland.
I recently suffered a stroke and spent some weeks in Hospital. I can assure you that if all the foreign Hospital workers, from Senior nurses through to cleaners (I don't know about Doctors) were to up sticks and leave the NHS would survive for less than 6 hours. To threaten to deny them the right to stay is rather like threatening to splash your enemy's shirt with your own blood. Only a politician could be that stupid. But they are aren't they.
Three carriers are required because the time for a major refit is greater than the interval between minor refits. Therefore there would be times when both are laid up.
Yes a rotary wing AWACS is better than none, but the marlin does not have the endurance to maintain coverage for an extended deployment. To keep at least one in the air at all times would mean all your stock would be in maintenance in very short order.
I mentioned that the F35B cannot take of vertically meaning it cannot meaningfully operate from a French carrier. The F35 B cannot be catapult launched, and French carriers have no ski jump. Why bring up the subject of the Harrier, that remark is totally irrelevant.
Thus the meaning of "inter operate" is basically the French taking over while we steam home for repairs.
And I still maintain that this is a BAE Systems stitch up..
I believe the whole affair is somewhat more Machiavellian than that, and a lot more tragic. What if the UK had gone for EMALS? Rolls Royce make the lift fan for the B variant. This would have been a big loss for them. Without the need for a STOVOL plane the purchase options open up. We would have the absurd state where we had one make of fighter deployed on carriers and a completely different one on land, but where there was a perfectly suitable non-carrier variant. The Typhoon, which is already looking something of a sick joke, would look totally absurd. Slow death Typhoon.
But wait, things get worse. The justification for buying only two carriers rather than the three required to be able to always have at least one available is the ability to "inter operate" with the French. That is now lost. The F35 B cannot take off vertically with any meaningful weapons or fuel load.
Hang on, It gets worse still. A carrier group is very vulnerable as we found out in the South Atlantic. AWACS coverage is absolutely essential. There is no ski jump AWACS, so no safe operation away from ground based AWACS.
As to the cost of redesign I simply do not believe a word of it. This whole thing is a BAE Systems stitch up.
As to your last comment I am inclined to agree. I most species with complex behavior pasterns the female has the more complex. The biggest problem in most organizations is group think. If you are an outsider to start with then standing back and observing this behavior rather than joining in should be easier.
I do remember hearing a story about Bill Gates and tablets. I have never heard it repeated, so maybe I have it wrong. There was two projects going on at Microsoft, both aimed at the touch interface. One was much like the iPad, hardware and software, and was ready to go to production. The other was software only and, I believe, was the genesis of Win 8. Bill had just one question, will it run Office,The answer for the first project was no, for the second it was yes. The first was canned. But for that decision I believe Microsoft could have seriously challenged Apple. As it was Microsoft missed the boat with crap software, released in a hurry, for a market that had long disappeared.
I am not a security expert but I am not sure this even achieves the intended objectives. Does this prohibit the establishment of a VPN hosted on some country willing to be uncooperative, if only just to be a nuisance. Russia do I hear. There is plenty of strong open source encryption software already. This bill still does not stop any crims communicating at will while staying legal. As to offering a new service, just offer it from the US and host it there. Software could still be written in the UK
Unfortunately, no catapult launch, so only Harrier of F35 - B. Also,no angled flight deck so no fly off, so rather too dangerous to land anything that requires an arrestor wire except in dire emergency and only after the decks have been completely cleared.
And only, it would appear, their honest liability. I found it quite shocking that Trump should find it a source of pride, that he should boast that, having shamelessly cheated students at the Trump U, he should get out of paying fair recompense. Here is a man completely devoid of any morality or any sense of shame.
Bush jr was a dick head. He had the foreign policy appreciation of the village idiot. And, in spite of all his protestations, the invasion of Iraq was all about grabbing oil. In even that he failed. He was advised by self serving idiots, including, I am deeply ashamed to say, Tony Blair.
I am not sure I fully understand the ramifications here but it sounds like Microsoft is fighting Android. If Microsoft make it easy to run x86 apps on Android why buy Windows. If they do not ... why buy Windows. Or have I missed the point. Quite probably seeing as I am not interested in apps, I do not tweet and I can see no point in facebook. I use a 'phone to talk to my friends. You know, the spoken word, using whole sentences, unlike Ronald Chump.
Remember it was Regan who ran such a massive deficit that has led to the the Chinese largely owning the US, a deficit that still shackles US policy. Something Trump still has to understand. There was a reason Regan economics was labelled Reganomics, it was economics of the make believe, of the innumerate, of the fantasist.
Unfortunately we have a most unsatisfactory extradition treaty with the US. Under this treaty the US need only make an allegation of a crime to trigger an extradition. The UK has to prove a crime to trigger an extradition. This extradition treaty was negotiated and signed by the respective heads of state, In the UK treaties are ratified by the PM by Royal Prerogative - which it was, In the US treaties have to be ratified by the senate - which refused. Yet another case of the UK being shafted by the US.
Without the full text it is hard to determine exactly what was said. The main message was to warn all employees that the expression of Trump-like views has no place at GrubHub. He has every right, even a duty, to warn his employees of company policy with respect to the expression of views, a policy with which I wholehearted agree. He did not instruct employees on how to vote, that would have been wholly wrong. The ability some of posters to misunderstand never fails to amaze me.
No, you are wrong. the crucial test is one of control. If you are a driver for a private hire fleet you can be told to pick up Mr X from Y and take him to Z. If you decline you are in breach of your employment contract. If you are an Uber driver you can accept the booking of decline. Control is the first test of employment, not reimbursement. The Employment Tribunal is completely wrong.
If you are an employee you agree to be under the control of the employer. You have set conditions of employment, you are not permitted to refuse to do anything you are employed to do, with the exception of anything illegal, immoral, etc. I was under the impression that an Uber driver just receives a message requesting a pickup which he may decide to respond to, or decline, as the mood suits him. I see no control from Uber in this arrangement, so the test for employment fails at the hurdle. Or have I completely misunderstood how Uber works? I am concerned that there seems to be little in the way of tests that the Uber driver is suitably licensed and insured, but that has nothing to do with employment.
Even the lowest paid and lowest skilled person working for HMRC would have enough clout to not put up with what is being alleged. If your boss is taking the piss walk. You have the skills to get a better job. His loss not yours. I just do not believe that HMRC or any subcontractor or sub-sub-contractor is running a sweat shop.
Yes, this was the Thatcher era religious belief that the gov should not do anything Private Enterprise could do. This required that the gov withdraw from all housing provision by way of the right to buy but with no replacement. Private Enterprise would gleefully jump into any opportunity, all that was needed was for the gov to withdraw (loud guffaw). What actually happened was the rise of the slum landlord. The only solution is to re-instate public housing. This would also serve as an excellent way of stimulating the economy in a way that ensures that the money stays local. The main problem is that we have far too few local builders, they would have to be imported from Poland and that is going to happen if they also have Degrees in Engineering (look of utter despair). This problem could have been fixed under the last Labour gov except that Blair believed the the sun shone out of Thatcher's arse.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019