Re: The scanners are useless
Time to repost the clip of Adam Savage from Mythbusters who went through the security scanners with two twelve inch industrial razor blades in his pocket...
6927 posts • joined 19 Jan 2007
These so-called "Debt management" companies are not in business for the benefit of people in debt, they're out to make money from people who believe their hype.
They are notorious for front-loading fees, taking a cut of any money you pay off themselves and offering commission for referrals to get their hooks into more people.
To quote Which Magazine: "Debt management companies negotiate with consumers’ creditors on their behalf, but offer poor value for money. Fee-charging debt management firms generally target people who are in serious financial trouble."
ITYM "Highlander II - The Sickening"!
I saw it on pirate video and thank the gods I did because it saved me having to queue up for my money back!
Alternatively, the Hitch-Hiker's Guide Film: This film is bad. Really Bad. I mean you just won't believe how hugely, mind-bogglying bad this film was. You may have thought the Highlander II or Waterworld were bad, but that's just peanuts to this film. Listen...
A film that takes Douglas Adams wonderful wordplay and either sets up the joke but then forgets to do the punchline or does the punchline without the setup meaning it falls totally flat. And as for the ludicrous Hollywood Meddling "Arthur and Trillian fall in love" sub plot? Belgium, man! Total swutting belgium!!
Let me give you another example of why smart meters are not a good idea:
At the moment there are a plethora of supply tarrifs, each company has dozens, online, offline, with standing charges or without, dual fuel or electricity and gas separate, fixed price, capped price, different charges for up to X KWh and then over and so on and so on and even with comparison sites it's a bugger of a job finding if you're getting a competitive rate or being ripped off.
Not only that, if you sign up for a tarriff and want to change you may get charged an "exit penalty" or, if the price drops, there have been cases where the company has charged people the higher rate for the *whole* period instead of when the price changed.
So do you think that smart meters are going to make the situation better? Well the answer is "far from it". What's more likely to happen now is that your consumption data is going be used to create an "individually tailored" charging package just for you which is going to make comparison between companies virtually impossible unless you're willing to sit down with a spreadsheet and calculate your exact usage hour by hour, day by day.
Who benefits from this? Not you, sunshine...
Since we now have the Dangerous Pictures and Dangerous Drawings Acts based on the idea that looking at that sort of thing will "Make You Do Bad Things[tm]", I think it's time that we started a petition to ban Soap Operas since it's clearly been shown that they are a greater danger to society!
Ah, once again the Matt Bryant movable goalposts are back out of storage, not to mention irrelevant personal attacks.
No, Matt, I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories and trying to denigrate my arguments like that just shows the paucity of yours.
The fact is that when one side in an argument can (like you repeatedly try to do) move the goalposts and change the argument to irrelevancies instead of dealing with the actual issue that we should have had a discussion into *all* the options available *before* any referendum was ever held, we were given a false choice and straw man arguments (another one was the claim that AV was somehow not "one person one vote") then it's not a case of "an electorate usually gets the politicans it deserves. You reap what you sow", but those who follow the Golden Rule ("He who has the gold makes the rules") decide what we reap from what they sow.
Once again I'll let you get the last word because there's no point in trying to have a sensible discussion with you.
Matt Bryant: "If AV cannot stand up to "old arguments" then it is simply not good enough either."
Oh good grief, Matt. It wasn't about the arguments, it was about the amount of money that the "Say No" campaign (backed by the Tories) could put into straw man advertising ("If you vote for AV this soldier won't get a bullet proof vest") and other ridiculous nonsense such as that contained in your second paragraph.
If you really wanted to summarize the situation accurately you could have said "Let's say someone is wearing sandals and want to wade across a stream. We could have given them a choice between the sandals and ballet pumps, stiletto heels, trainers, slippers, wellington boots, flip-flops, waders, army boots etc etc, but if we did that, they might actually realise that there *are* better options."
Instead, they, like you, offer a false dichotomy of "well it's either sandals or trainers" and use that to set up a straw man argument showing how bad the "only available" alternative is.
The only bit you did get right is that "it does not mean replacing it with the trend au jour is going to be a better solution", but you miss the point that it was never an open and free choice in the first place.
@Matt Bryant: "before you start going on about proportional representation, please look at the mess that has caused in other countries such as Greece" etc etc etc
Ah, the same old arguments that were trotted out when we *DID* have a chance to change a broken electoral system and which were refuted time and again, yet, due to large amounts of money spent on a campaign of FUD and lies ("Vote No to AV or the baby dies") we ended up with an electorate that were confused or scared into sticking with FPTP.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019