Re: why can't it be put to the vote?
to qoute your fav man Mr Ferage - a vote that close for reman would mean its unfinished business so he would have carried on as normal - so why is that OK for your lot but because you won we have to shut up?
68 posts • joined 5 Feb 2017
Don't you mean Timber wolf?
IIRC it got that monika in the IS because on first contact with it the battlecomp couldn't work out if it was a marauder or a catapult and kept swapping designation between MAD and CAT
oh and I'd highly recommend checking out the mods, one brings it upto 3060 tech
Honestly - there are still plenty of brave people willing to take risks, the air force still has test pilots etc but your bang on about society not being willing to take the risk - though it should be calculated risks we take not the complacent ones that ended up with 2 shuttle disasters
I honestly don't know what its like at the top of the civil service - Private Eye paints some very dangerous pictures of top Civil Service Mandarins walking into cushy jobs in industry - but at the bottom there are very stringent rules preventing any hint of favouritism - no nice meals out paid for by consultants at Christmas for the grunts - that may be a bribe. c.f. certain heads of HMRC I won't name.
Really we are having this debate again? can't they (politicians) just buttout and solve the problems we elect them to solve?
For some El Reg readers of a certain age they might remember this debate around home computers framed in exactly the same terms with exactly the same studies forming exactly the same conclusions (the ones the study buyers wanted). Funnily the world didn't end.
Teddy Boys, Rockers and whatever it was worrying the 1900's equvialent of the Daily Fail - Children embrace new things and generally manage to muddle their way through to adulthood without causing the collapse of society despite adults believing thats whats going to happen.
@pen-y-gors and malcolm weir - look will you two just stop it please - throwing actual facts at brexiteers only confuses them (and they will just call you names) - they prefer to be concerned about made up bendy banana laws and other such things.They live in a world where unpicking 30 or so years of mutual agreements etc is a trivial task and we shouldn't worry our little heads about it as the brightest and best the Tory party have to offer are on the case - oh hang on....
would you like to cite where you got that claim? a quick google doesn't provide me with those stats, searching for 'knife crime per capita', what it does provide me with is evidence its very hard to compare one country with another as each may have a different definition of knife crime.
the only thing it does seem easy to compare are factual events - death by gun in country x & y.
To a greater or lesser extent you are probably right but it doesn't really alter the fact the UK is still safer than America, an AR-15 makes it easier to kill 17 people than a knife and politicians lie through their teeth to get their agenda across.
TBH I don't think the size of the government is the issue here (though nice try at ramming another of your pet hates into the discussion) The problem is leadership, it doesn't matter how small and agile government is if you don't have a clear driection on where to go you won't get there.
If the cabinet/conservatives can't agree on the shape of brexit how can the rest of government head towards that goal?
just like the same list won't be long in the private sector either - i've spent more time in the private sector watching IT projects mess up by the numbers than I have in the public sector but the private sector doesn't have a PAC to wash the dirty linen for them.
BTW the civil service isn't allowed to list the things it does well as that is considerd party politicking, you would have to ask the government why they don't trumpet the things that go right in gov IT and yes there are some - not as much as there should be but I'd once again suggest the ones which get it right are in house responsive teams rather than outsourced 'charge an extra 60K for moving a field' contracts - which as mentioned goes against the everything the civil service does is crap narrative.
Which brings the question of why they dont get the job. It is government wanting this product, it is government allocating the job to who they choose, it is the gov who choose to outsource. In fact its gov all the way down except for the very end point who are selected by the gov to do the job. Hence it is the gov's fault yet again.
A very fair point codejunky and I'd have to say because there are not enough of them and neoliberalism. Sucessive governments both New Labour and Conservative have outsourced IT to the private sector, a dept with its own in house IT only have to lose one round of comparison to the private sector (who will lie about costs to get the contract) to lose that capability forever. Essentially in house IT keeps its head down and just delivers the goods (hence no press about some depts IT messing up).
Where we are now is is at the epicenter of a number of policies coming home to roost.
neoliberalism - outsource as many gov functions as possible leading to no in house specialism to keep the outsourced firms honest. Gov IT not allowed to bid on other department contracts because unfair.
MBA's - short term profit over long term growth, load a company with debt and keep hoping those contracts roll in.
Government - get rid of civil servants as they are all lazy and feckless, bring in consultants because shiney and hide every mistake behind 'commercial confidentiality'
Its a bit simple to blame the gov all the way down but that fits the narrative that got us into this mess in the first place, gov do a bad job so let the private sector do it they are more efficient - except when they have no compitition either from gov depts able to do the job themselves or other outsourcing firms happy just to slice the pie up without making too many waves.
No, Gov cannot do everything well and nor should it but its needs the capability in house to counterbalance the current excesses of the outsourcing compaines otherwise they will keep getting shafted.
IIRC because of fuel shortages they were trained to run under soviet tanks without the engines running or exposure to battlefield conditions - so when exposed to that chaos they ran under the wrong tanks or back to their handlers with preictable results.
For some reason they continued with the program for ages despite it being a failure nearly every time they were used
well the Vanguard subs job is to sit in deep water and pretend to be an empty bit of sea - really doing a bad job if they get in a scrap - you are probably thinking about the attack boats the Trafalgar and Astute class - not sure how may of those are operational ATM as the captain's seem to have a bad habbit of pranging them into boats, sandbars etc
We had a ASW navy at the time because thats what we were tasked to do within NATO - the navy's primary role at the time was to defend the GIUK gap and provide ASW for carrier groups - remember Russia was such a big bad at the time every NATO military was primed for fighting it rather than anything else that might crop up.
Now I can't remember the source (Probably Private Eye) - but I believe the MoD did some serious accounting gymnastics to reach the 2% figure, f.ex including military pension funding and other sundries into the figure, rather than actual spending on kit - perhaps France isn't so creative in its accounting?
N.B. i'm not trying to defend the MoD here, this is just the numbers bullshit sucessive governments have made them do - it doesn't however detract from the piss poor leadership at the top of the MoD and its appaling procurement failures
looking at his posts i'd suggest he's conservative and doing it because it makes him feel better - remember any sort of change scares conservatives and he's lashing out the only way he can - behind an annoymous name on the internet.
Then again feminazi,mangina, beta male etc are the right wing way of closing off discussions - just like they accuse the left of doing - only they think they are special for doing it.
oh look another nasty name for people he disagrees with (do you feel all clever?) - please see the comment above and piss off back to the 1800 when those pesky women didn't have the vote.
I think you'll find people were complaing about the context not the the women per se. But why let comprehension get in the way of a rant?
Surely you are picking up on this by now. Catagory != criminal law. Criminal law != category.
let me explain
it was an offence to mis-catagorise bananas and sell them. In the UK selling class B bananas as class A was an offence exactly the same as it is under the EU directive.
I never said anything about not agreeing with food standards please read again.
"I'm sure you will be looking forward to your chlorine washed chicken being described as farm fresh organic food?"
the key words there are 'being described as' - i.e. passing one product off as another - its what these regulations you find so funny stop happening.
I'll ignore rest of the rant as the usual tangental argument brexiteers indulge in.
No. What? Eh? The UK has made suggestions because the EU demands 3 things- money, EU citizens get special treatment and Irish border.
No the UK wants a border at the RoI ports because migrants - they could check documentation at NI ports but won't do that.
money - we agreed to be in a club with fees for a certain period - if I signed a 5 year tennancy agreement which didn't have a refund clause - i'd have to carry on paying - they are not demanding anything just expecting us to honor our agreements. - you know the way big grown up countries do.
EU citizens get special treatment - just like we expect all those pensioners we exported to spain and france to get special treatment. - personally I'd like the EU to tell us to piss off and see how well we do without their nurses etc and with 1m new pensioners to cope with - that will be fun - mind you we could always rob all those poor commonwealth countries of their trained nurses instead - that will be fair.
Irish border - once again both sides wanted one. your claiming the UK disn't want one doesn't change the facts.
Sod that go talk to the 2 remainers above who are trying to defend this law. Apparently its about the label on the bendy banana not the bendy banana being labelled. Makes you wonder how the world spins without a law for it.
Please just stop - we had the same fsking law in the UK before the EU directive - how many more times?
@codejunky - i'll take a leap here and guess you voted condervative - in which case its your bone headed idiots who can't seem to negotiate or get it into their heads - we left the club the EU owes us no favours. its David and his crew that are being incompetent with their rainbows and unicorn wish list.
You mean like how we extensivly catagorise what everything is during trade negotiations to ensure everyone is working from a common understanding and framework?
Yes the UK had catgories for bananas before the EU directive.
I'm sure you will be looking forward to your chlorine washed chicken being described as farm fresh organic food?
I presume in your world caveat emptor is the only way to go?
"the NI/Republic border"
Oh come on please - i know you support brexit but the reality distortion field is strong on this one. Please try reading up before you post nonsense.
NI and the RoI don't want a border - true.
UK wants the border at the EU ports in RoI and won't entertain the hard border being at the NI ports. The EU doesn't like that idea because it messes up free movement within the EU.
Both sides want a proper border with customs checks etc they just can't agree where it would be.
The technology for a totally soft border isn't there yet (check out the soft border problems between Norway and sweeden) its also very expensive which would put a dent in the magical £350 milllion a week we will apparently (not) be saving.
To claim it is all the EUs fault is not just disengenous but a lie.
@AC don't bother - i've already explained in depth to codejunky the EU directive in question and how it reflelcted our own mislabling of goods act and the penalties associated with it - but he doesn't want to know or care so keeps of dragging up the bendy banana misrepresentation like all good brexiteers.
On the contrary not once did I say those who disagree with me were unintelligent. I relish discussions with those who disagree with me, especially these back and forths we sometimes have.
Back when I went to university deep in the mists of time, those of us studying science were obliged to take courses in philosophy and ethics - one of the things we were taught was to always question our beliefs and not let them blind us - in this case just because you see bias in a news outlet you still need to examine it and use it to question where your thoughts come from lest you become blind to alternate ideas and fall into the trap of purity of thought - c.f confirmation bias and Dunning–Kruger effect.
I was just surprised so many here who are obviously well educated would be so dismissive of any source of information that didn't agree with their own internal bias
Yes I disagree with the BBC stance on windmills but that led me onto challenging my beliefs on why they won't work and indeed I found out there is some interesting work going on on energy storage that may make them more viable - not the panacea the greens think they are but not a complete dead donkey in the right energy mix.
Please don't go down the road of 'oh let's use this example to show bias I can do the same with all news sites - they all have an agenda to push - if you wish to see a right wing example of articles being changed on a daily basis or pulled completely without noting any change look at the Daily Mail website for a week.
Its odd - I had thought this being an IT site it would be populated by reasonably intelligent people instead I see commentards (particulaly on the right for some reason) spouting off about the bias of the BBC.
I've friends on both sides of the fence and they both complain about the bias in the BBC which to me suggests they are getting it pretty much spot on.
I was also brought up to challenge my own beliefs and that everyone puts a spin on things - so I get news from the BBC, Sky, C4 and Fox - and I find ideas that are valid on all of them - perhaps if you regard channel n as biased you could challenge your own beliefs and watch it a bit - you never know you may find some interesting ideas in there - unless of course you know your views are so pure and correct anything else is wrong and has nothing to offer you?
no I read the acts, directives and examine the case law as appropriate before commenting.
So when talking about bananas - different countries had different standards - they harmonised them and yes the made it a criminal act to miss sell a product as exceptional if it were class 1 or 2 - in my book thats consumer protection - its a bad thing to rely on caveat emptor and allow a rogue trader to carry on regardless.
Jam once again - we (UK) had standards for jam, marmalade and other preserves before the legislation and different countries called preserves different things - once again they standardised things so people in different countires knew what thay were bying - hardly a bad thing - its not about people being stupid but helping out with cultural differences.
but again you miss my point - passing directives to ease trade you see as a bad thing - restricting our government passing broad, badly worded and unjust laws is something you don't think is a positive?
er no they made claiming your product was one thing when it was something else an offence just like we have the misrepresentation act 1967 as part of contract law.
Please stop reading everything the daily fail tells you - I can only think from your statement you voted to leave because you are against consumer protection which is what that particular EU directive was about
you mean the bananas that we (UK) catagorised by size and shape for trade before the EU standardised the rules? - good grief if that's your knowledge of the EU no wonder you voted to leave.
I won't mention you seem to equate our politicians getting slapped down for crap laws and treating us all like criminals with trade standardisation rules. oh hang on I did - what a weird fantasy world you live in
Aww bless Bob - are the use of pejoratives offending you? poor snowflake - perhaps you ought to hold back on calling people names like OBAKA? - I've noticed this with both the right and left they love to call the others names but first to run to their high horse when it happens to them or their ideas FFS grow up a little.
Big John - I think you'll find (assuming you have access to more than one news source) Bush was blamed not for the levees failing but for the piss poor response after that happened - you know the FEMA debacle. I wasn't suggesting his facial expressions were the problem but his poor leadership.
Still - I think i've worked out your decision tree now
Blame the feds
reps in the white house? oh shit - blame the state
reps in charge of the state? oh shit - blame the city
reps in charge of the city? oh shit well its all fake news La La La, oh and the Left
I thought the problem with Katrina was the levies were in so poor shape they had no hope of stopping it? IIRC it was going reasonably well until the levies broke and the land being below sea level didn't help much either - please correct me if i'm wrong it was a while ago.
Not sure the point your making there bob, there is nothing we could do to stop a nuclear winter but there is plenty we could do to cause it...
Regardless of the cause though I wouldn't even want to see a fox reporter out in it - we all know what a hurricane is like (or those of us on the right of the pond have seen them on TV) there is no need to put a reporter out in one just for shits and giggles.
This can only happen if things continue as they are. By that I mean staunch remainers insisting the country must be destroyed if we cant be in the EU and so siding with nationalists and racists. If the outward looking EU supporters would pull together with the outward looking leavers we wont have the problem you describe.
As the then leader of the brexit party said - a 52% 48% split in favour of staying in the EU would mean it was 'unfinished business' for him - are the people who voted to remain not allowed the same feelings?
Apparently not because you and your like tell us to shut up - well here's the thing, you spent your time pissing on the fire from the outside moaning about how awful the EU is - well i'm taking a leaf from your book and doing the same about brexit.
Life's hard live with it.
Bob please, I know you like to defend Trump at every opportunity and you're entitled to that reality distortion field but it is not in any way PC to come out and say Nazis are bad - whoop do do they had a permit the others didn't but they would be the first once in power to ban any sort of protest with or without a permit - they like to paint themselves as victims every time.
Very nearly everyone in the free world knows the only way to deal with these people is head on. c.f. the history of the run up to the second world war.
In previous posts both you and big John have gone on about how the 'leftists' like to smash things up when they protest and the right don't - well you've been proved correct the alt-right kill people - me i'll take my protesters smashing a few windows rather than driving cars into people and killing them thanks.
I've wondered this whenever anyone says drones are the way forward. The seem to be predicated on bombing less technical enemies - but up against a second let alone first rate power - how difficult would it be to jam drones?
I presume this must be a viable because of the research into autonomus drones but is it more difficult than sending a plane with a jamming pod?
I like this from page 82
help create the most comprehensive digital map of Britain to date. In doing so, it will support a vibrant and innovative digital economy, ranging from innovative tools to help people and developers build to virtual mapping of Britain for use in video games and virtual reality.
looks like that postgrad minecraft project is getting dusted off again - because 'look we're hip'.
I know snowflake is supposed to be an insult but looking at the defintion from wikipedia
is a neologistic term used to characterize the young adults of the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. The term is considered derogatory.
Apart from the young adults part doesn't that pretty much define the behaviour of Trump? I will cite his own tweets as evidence and interviews on Fox news.
Unfortunatly Nick in our post truth, fake news world - you can't be that nuanced anymore - object to the usurption of a process you have to support the person it was used against.
Dislike the dumbing down of politics to soundbites - you're elitist.
Want a reasonable debate where people don't just shout over each other on politics shows? - good luck finding that. Leave alone the despair I feel seeing any discussion on politics dissolve into silly name calling.
Want facts with your politics? - your an intellectual in a world where people are fed up with 'experts' and their boring knowledge of things.
It seems thinking has become passe in this age.
Have an upvote sir - I have no idea what this skill is they are talking about either.
Mind you I'm not even sure what the point of these things is - can anyone with one enlighten me on what it does better than any of the older ways of playing music, making a to do list or searching the web?
or you could try doing some investigation yourself and see how some of the 'moronic' things arn't actually that moronic.
borrowing for infrastructure actually generates revenue in the economy but only if it is done as government borrowing not the abortion of PFI (see private eye ad nauseam for how well that works) yes the great gordon broon came up with the idea but he was a muppet - the tories said they would scrap it but gideon decided it was well worth running with and saddling the young of the country with even more debt.
I'd also be surprised given how much money we currently bung at the railways to fund stagecoaches' sharholders - we couldn't provide the same service re-nationalising it at the same cost to the taxpayer.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019