Hang on, that's a genuine website? I've just been to order-order.com for a look and I really thought it was a Daily Mash type satire site.
Are you telling me that's real?
232 posts • joined 21 Jul 2017
I am surprised at how godlike the remainers see Nigel but I guess being able to bring such a massive victory against the odds will do that.
I must admit I scoffed a little bit when I first read this, however actually it rings quite true. Sold a completely unattainable reality and made people believe in it? Check. Told lots of scare stories of how bad the other side is? Check. Vanished in to thin air as soon as any actual work had to be done to deliver what he promised? Yep, seems exactly like God to me.
Does Nigel have the power and authority of the government to bring about that second referendum? No.
He would have to try to get his party elected next time to government or be so influential to cause a winning party to campaign on providing a referendum (such as he did before).
So did he have the power or didn't he? Anyway, that's missing the point. When a leading figure campaigning for Brexit states publicly and loudly that a small margin of victory for his opponents wouldn't be conclusive and would warrant another vote, I find it rather amusing that turning the tables on that argument means his followers (acolytes if you prefer, you brought God in to it after all) now scream down the possibility of a second vote saying it would be undemocratic. The irony is that a close result warranting a second referendum was a Brexiteer idea.
Also, a 3.8% differential is a decisive one in an election.
Er... Not according to lead Brexiteer Nigel Farage it's not. He said:
"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
The full context was in an interview with The Mirror (Original interview here) regarding a second referendum. So if Remain won by only a 4% difference, that would have meant a second referendum according to Nigel. But Leave won by less than that, and now we are bound indefinitely by "the will of the people"?
As an aside i do wonder if a lot of the ills in digital natives are caused by an underdeveloped sense of delayed gratification, any one who downloaded anything > 10mb on a 36k dialup certainly learnt it the hardway.....
Indeed. I vividly remember trying to download the demo of Soldier of Fortune (terrible game really) on a 56k dialup line. 95 Mb and it took 8 hours. What was worse was that at the end of it, I discovered I'd downloaded the Soldier of Fortune demo...
"Others warned that it could send the message that the US justice system is for sale."
Didn't we already know this? Hasn't it always been the case that the more money you throw at justice, be that a court case or security or whatever, the more likely the result will go your way, never mind what the law actually says.
"Then clean yourself up and get a job in the industry. If you're even halfway decent it'll pay way more than this penny ante nonsense."
Sadly difficult to achieve when you refuse to leave your parents basement. Otherwise, I have to agree with you.
I haven't read the article yet, but I just felt the need to applaud the Reg for the correct onomatopoeia
Why do people think phones ring?
Mine doesn't ring, bring, beep, tinkle or anything else. It screams "Ceeeeeeelebrate good times, come on!" at an embarrassingly high volume during important meetings.
—f. Surveillance, spying, voyeurism. It's not an Amazon bot that followed Gertrude down the street, taking photos of her legs—it just looked like one.
No, that was the Instagram bot
It wasn't an Amazon bot that quartered the entire neighbourhood all morning hacking domestic WiFi.
No, that was the Google bot
It wasn't an Amazon bot that collected photos of people going in and out of Babylon-on-Thames.
No, that was the Facebook bot
On another subject, Robot Wars just gained corporate sponsorship so they can practice and develop defensive / offensive strategies for when their particular bot gets cornered in a dark alleyway by a bunch of tooled-up Ebay tat flinging bots.
Just give it time and it will fit, Minis are getting larger and more ridiculous by the week. Alec Issigonis must be turning in his grave.
And not just Minis either, Ford Ka's are now bigger than old Fiestas, Nissan Micra's are huge and the other day I was nearly run over by someone driving what I first thought to be a bus, but had "Fiat 500" written on the back of it! A car originally smaller than a mini is now larger than a Land Rover Defender. The mind boggles.
I refer the poster to the words of Nigel Farage:
You can't go around using Nige's words against him like that! Let's face it, he lies about everything else, he could defensibly say he's lying about that as well.
Note: this isn't actually a Brexit related opinion. Having lived in Thanet for a while, I can attest that the man is a lying shyster no matter what the subject.
So you think punishing or restricting the majority will make any difference to future instances like this?
I think having in place sensible controls on devices / machines which can be used in disruptive and dangerous ways will restrict this type of incident in the future. I get that this is a hobby for some people and I understand and appreciate that, however that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated. My hobby happens to be very heavily policed and regulated, and entirely rightly. I enjoy cars and driving but that doesn't mean I should be able to drive what I want, where I want in any manner I want. There are rules and laws and restrictions and licenses for everyone who wants to drive a car, regardless of their intent. Does it stop people using cars as weapons against people and infrastructure? No, but it massively reduces the possibility. Perhaps you think that is unfair?
Or do you perhaps think it's possible to unilaterally ban the manufacture, sale and use of drones completely, remove all the internet content on how to bypass drone restrictions, or modify a drone for longer endurance, and get everyone to forget completely how to build, modify or fly a drone?
Congratulations, reductio ad absurdum.
"Why is it that politicians (and pilots on PPrune) don't seem to understand that regulation only stops people who are prepared to abide by the rules?
Criminals and terrorists will just ignore any restrictions, so the only impact will be on law-abiding citizens who already follow the existing rules.
You cannot ban drones, anymore than you can ban encryption, the technology now exists and is widely available, it's too late.
Rubbish, this is exactly the same argument used in the USA about why tighter gun control wont stop people getting killed, "This won't work, so we shouldn't even try", and with little or no basis for such an assessment. It's defeatist nonsense in either case.
I'm not sure I'm thrilled by this development. Essentially this was always a stupidity / laziness tax, paid by those who couldn't be arsed to keep an eye on their financial dealings and take appropriate action. Certainly I think most people on here were always aware this sort of thing went on and took appropriate action, be that by buying phones outright themselves and then taking SIM only plans or keeping a proper eye on their contracts and expiry dates. Now that companies will be forced to notify the lazy / stupid, they will inevitably pay less to these companies, which will mean prices go up across the board, penalising the people who diligently check their paper work and work to keep their outgoings low.
Then again, I suppose an adult entertainment company could get them to map all the sounds associated with having one off the wrist and start pinging tissue adverts at the hapless onanist.
I had a similar thought about it detecting a change in the tone of buzzing noises and the resultant Duracell adverts being sent off to lonely housewives.
Adding to the general sense of farce, a man dressed as Monopoly Man, complete with a bag of fake cash, a top hat and a monocle sat a few rows behind Pichai, pulling various faces in an effort to photobomb proceedings.
Was I the only one who had to scroll back to the top of to check the image on the top of the article for this?
Indeed, I would love to see what happens if the the non-UK owners of utilities / manufacturing were made to pack up and go home after Brexit. Mass unemployment in most manufacturing industries (Japanese, German, American mostly) and electricity blackouts, since every nuclear power plant in the UK is owned by EDF (French). And the Dartford crossing would be closed down out of spite by the (french) toll taking company. Lets brick up the channel tunnel while we're at it, eh?
So, I must admit I'm struggling with the legitimacy of this. So:
Can someone explain how this is even remotely legitimate? Surely US trade sanctions apply to US companies / bodies? If the UK.gov want companies to stop trading with said non-US country, shouldn't the UK set its own sanctions for its own companies, and so on and so forth? Otherwise any country with enough allies could just impose trade sanctions. What if China imposed trade sanctions on the USA then arrested any and all company directors who's companies traded with the USA, regardless of where those companies were based?
"i can see your point but "nothing" is a bit strong as it's also true that most of NATO members are EU members too."
"Trolling, much? You list the EU countries of NATO, but excluding the USA"
The USA is part of the EU as well now? Good grief, they'll let anyone in now, won't they? First Australia in the Eurovision song contest, now this! Maybe Brexit isn't such a bad idea after all!
Fine! We'll build our own Satellite based Navigation System! With BlackJack! And Hookers! In fact, forget the Satellite based Navigation System!
What do you mean "Post Brexit we won't be able to afford the hookers, never mind anything else?"
"Will one day cure baldness, feed the hungry and bring about universal peace and harmony...
...or so a salesman told me."
"I'll take 200, your cheque is in the post."
I am a Nigerian prince. Due to the state of civil unrest in my home nation country, I am having trouble getting my blockchain out of the country and in to a Swiss...... er.... blockchain storeage facility. I have been assured that for the small sum of £50,000 they can help me transfer it and release all the wealth within! If you lend me this monies, I will give you half of what I get from it!
"or perhaps you'd be fine about ur mrs/hubby/significant-other sharing all your pillow talk conversations with others? oh that's private, you say? well isnt that a pickle."
Isn't it then more a case of "know your audience"? I share things with my spouse in private because I trust them to keep my confidence. I trust that our relationship is means more to them than scoring cheap points and idle gossip. In the workplace, I generally try to avoid discussions which are possibly incriminating and may come back to haunt me later. Especially when that conversation is written down and logged! Especially especially when that conversation is with an already annoyed employee.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019