* Posts by NerryTutkins

58 posts • joined 9 Jan 2018


Three-quarters of crucial border IT systems at risk of failure? Bah, it's not like Brexit is *looks at watch* err... next month


Re: You can't blame the government...

WTO rules, as ibmalone indicates, would require that if the UK just waves in EU stuff (even though there is no customs union or other deal), it would have to extend the same courtesy to everything from other countries.

It would also lose what leverage it claims to have (e.g. German cars, prosecco), you know, the things that would definitely break the germans and the EU and make them beg the UK for a trade deal.

However, considering that the UK car industry is already closing down, I suspect the germans will have no problem selling cars to the UK, which will no longer produce any itself.


Re: What possible delay?

Ah yes, the magic of brexit.

You can take 50% of your trade from the best terms (single market) to the worst (WTO rules) and we'll brush it off, we'll hardly notice (despite all the border checks, tariffs, chaos). Apparently the best trade deal we have, covering 50% of our trade, really isn't that important.

But we absolutely MUST leave the customs union. Why? Because if we don't, we won't be able to sign new trade deals. Apparently these new trade deals create MASSIVE benefits (unless they're with Europe for 50% of our trade, in which case, they erm... don't).

And let's not even consider the fact that the EU has the best set of free trade deals of any economic block or country, and Liam Fox is (not surprisingly) shit out of luck when it comes to even getting those countries to continue on the same terms. But we're supposed to believe when the UK is a fraction of the size of the EU, it's going to sign better deals with China and the US.

No, it's going to part it's cheeks and accept whatever painful deal the US forces on it. Look into Liam Fox's background, and you can see that's his wet dream. The UK as the 51st state, though one without any representation or power, blindly following US rules.


Re: Cheer up, what's the worst that could happen?

Spain has already indicated it would not veto Scotland joining the EU, assuming it was leaving a UK which had already left the EU.

It was different at the time of the Scottish independence referendum. The UK was an EU country, and Spain would have been very nervous about Scotland being able to leave, and then join the EU. That would clearly encourage other EU regions to push for independence, including its own.

But if the UK was outside the EU, then there is really no problem for Spain. The fact Scotland had left a bigger country should pose no barrier.

After all, Spain didn't veto the Czech Republic or Slovakia joining the EU (Czechoslovakia had previously split into two) or Croatia (which was part of the former Yugoslavia which split up in a rather messy way). Bosnia is also a candidate country.

The relationship between the UK and Spain is likely to deteriorate over Gibraltar, and so encouraging Scotland to go for independence by supporting its bid for EU membership might in fact be rather attractive to Spain as another way to kick the UK in the balls.


Re: What possible delay?


The UK can unilaterally *cancel* brexit by withdrawing it's article 50 notification to leave.

But to simply *delay* the leave date, without cancelling it, it needs unanimous agreement.

The European court has ruled that withdrawing article 50 cannot be done in play of a delay. In other words, it must be a genuine cancellation, and not simply a tool to delay brexit by using the fact it can be done unilaterally (which delaying cannot) and then triggering article 50 again later.


Re: What possible delay?

Yes, but since agreement has to be unanimous, it doesn't really matter if Germany says it will vote for an extension - the decision will come down to whether France and Spain agree. It's pretty clear May has no intention of actually changing her position, she's just buying time to stay in office a little longer and exhaust all the alternative routes to either a softer brexit or a referendum, so we're left with her shitty deal, or jumping off a very high cliff.

Airbus will shutter its A380 production line from 2021


probably end up like concorde

I can see the A380 going a similar route. Expensive development, sold into a market that moved in the other direction to what was expected, such that it was not economically viable and had to stop production. Since no new ones are being made, the existing ones become a novelty and a status symbol, and being fastest/largest has some niche applications that rich passengers will pay for. In the same way we might not see a faster plane than concorde for 50 years after it first went into service, we might not see a larger plane than the A380 for a similar period.

With artificial intelligence and automation meaning aircraft may soon be flying without any pilot, the cost savings of larger aircraft in that respect disappear. The only reason to build larger might be in terms of capacity on really busy routes. But even there, technology could well reduce the separation needed between planes for safety, meaning you can achieve the same capacity with two or three smaller aircraft. So quite possibly, the A380 might never be topped.

Not a price cut! Apple perks up soggy iPhone demand with rebate boost


market share

Apple is going exactly the way it did with the PC market in the 80s and 90s. They start with a great product that virtually creates a market to itself. High prices and margins result.

Pretty soon, they have 80-90% of this new market, especially in the US, and are creaming it in.

But their selfishness in wanting to keep everything for themselves - OS, hardware, even peripherals and service/support means that other vendors have to find a way to compete.

An alternative OS that is available to all gets picked up, and dozens of manufacturers pile in making hardware. It may not start out anywhere near as good, but the sheer volume ensures it catches up pretty quick. Soon you get equivalent performance and features for a fraction of the price of Apple. Meanwhile, Apple chooses to retain its margins and profits, at the expense of market share.

Already in Europe, Apple is down to maybe 10% of the market for smart phones. Android has the rest. They have more in the US, but even there, the same economics will ultimately prevail. Apple beancounters are too busy looking at the high profit margins they still have to notice that some apps and developers are now not bothering with Apple, because Android is 90% of the market.

Pretty soon Apple is a niche product, most software, and virtually all new innovative software doesn't support Apple devices, and their business rapidly starts to collapse.

If Apple still had Steve Jobs, you might think he'd do it again and find a whole new segment for Apple to dominate and milk for 10-20 years. But Cook? I doubt it.

I know people have been predicting Apple's demise for ages. But looking at their phones now, they're not really leading the way any more. This big screen things are copying Android... Apple spent years resisting it and insisting their small screens were the optimal size. And the big kicker for them is declining market share. It's hard to see a long term future if your whole ecosystem is less than 10% of the market. Just look at what Windows did to Apple.

Heart Internet stops beating, starts Monday with big portion of FAIL


fed up

Used heart for around 10 years, and generally had three or four servers with them at any time. Was very happy in general up to about a month or two ago. Since then, this is the third (and biggest) network connectivity issue. You'd think that after the second, they'd have been pulling out the stops to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Sad to see another hosting outfit lose the plot. With three big total outages that all seem to be network related (i.e. probably same thing) and they seem to be getting worse rather than better and taking longer to fix, it's really time to find somewhere else now unfortunately.

Not really angry, just fed up as lots of work to start moving sites to other servers and seems a shame to bail after 10 years when we were very happy, but the frequency and length of the outages is a problem we need to tell customers we're doing something more than just hoping it doesn't happen again.

'He must be stopped': Missouri candidate's children tell voters he's basically an asshat


Re: It's just not that hard to figure it out

I am not sure that is true.

I think the hard right people who were previously on the fringe but are now the mainstream have realized, just like fascists have through the ages, that the key to power is convincing the poor, angry people at the bottom that their problems aren't because of the rich billionaires trousering massive tax cuts and pork barrel money, but are instead because of those poor immigrants who're competing with them for crumbs thrown from the billionaires' tables.

I would bet that a significant number of Trump voters were not traditional republicans, but were exactly the kind of working class people with a lower educational level with some anger that can be channelled very easily and effectively by some simplistic promises to dish out some punishment to gays, blacks, jews, leftists, atheists, immigrants, etc.

What will be the interesting factor is how many traditional Republican voters (probably such as this guy's children) are intelligent and educated enough to be repulsed not just by the rhetoric from Trump and co, but the threats to the constitution (will Trump really attempt to abolish constitutional rights to citizenship by presidential decree, put god back into the classroom and mandate the US as a christian country, etc.?).

My bet is sadly that the far right with all their expensive analytics bought with Putin cash have crunched the numbers and know there are far more angry poorly educated bible thumping gun nuts than well educated, qualified professionals who believe in the American dream, the constitution and the rule of law.


A bit of honesty

Mrs Nutkins is Brazilian, and I've observed the same fact-free fascist fanaticism among some of her friends and family on Facebook over their recent election of Bolsonaro.

The thing that puzzles me is why we haven't yet reached the point at which these people can come right out and just embrace swastikas and nazis and fascism, and instead still insist it's the other side that are the fascists?

I mean, they dance all the way around the subject - gays and jews are bad, embrace christian/traditional values, force kids into it and push it through the schools, defend the torturers and dictators of the past, but when you're asked flat out if you're a racist or a fascist, deny it.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why can they not make the final step and just admit and embrace the fact they're ducks?

'BMW, Airbus and Siemens' get the Brexit spending shakes


Re: codejunky should be along at any moment...

"Funny, I don't remember any promises about a deal, it was a simple "Do you want to stay, or leave?" question."

Indeed it was. Stay, or leave. That's all.

But it's the brexitters who now insist that remaining in the single market and customs union (the so called 'Norway' or 'Switzerland' option) is a betrayal of what people voted for, even though it quite obviously isn't because the UK would still be leaving the EU. Oh no, people definitely voted for an end to free movement (even though as you point out, that was never in the question) and so remaining in the single market and customs union is absolutely out of the question, even though the brexitters promised that it was 'absurd' to suggest that the UK would lose access to the single market.

So, simple solution. UK accepts single market and customs union, leaves EU, ends up like Switzerland. Job done. Economy saved, referendum vote fulfilled, everyone's happy (except the pro-fascists who want to become the 51st state of the US and drop their pants for Trump).

UK space comes to an 'understanding' with Australia as Brexit looms


Re: RE: Mooseman

"What is the point in having a referendum if you're then going to ignore the result?"

The debate isn't about leaving the EU now. It's about whether the government will do a sensible deal and stay in the single market and customs union, or not.

What I think most remain leaning people object to is that during the campaign, the 'leave' camp insisted there was no prospect of losing access to the single market, or having customs controls and the economic damage it would do, as well as all the other promises about immigration and 'taking back control'.

And yet now that it's perfectly obvious the UK govt cannot deliver everything the leave side promised (even with Boris angrily thumping the table and acting all manly), the septuagenarian Tory voters are throwing the economic benefits of the single market under the bus, in order to ensure we don't have to agree common rules on hair dryers and banana bendiness with the French and Germans, or have to hear Polish spoken on the bus.

I think most remainers, even despite the obvious Putin interference via Aaron Banks, would accept leaving the EU, if the result was the Swiss or Norway style option promised, and not the Albania option that the 'leave' side said at the time was remainer scaremongering.


Re: RE: Mooseman

Firstly the EU isn't about to collapse. It really isn't.

Hungary may get kicked out if their autocrat doesn't start unwinding his power grab (which the Tory MEPs, incidentally, voted not to censure). Italy or possibly some others may, at worst, be forced from the Eurozone if their populists won't abide by the rules. But no other country wants to leave the single market or customs union. Even if all the politics did fall apart, and the currency union broke up, they'd all still want to trade with each other without customs and with common standards. So they would. The single market and customs union will stay, as will freedom of movement and all the other aspects, because it's been hugely successful and beneficial. And even in the more right-leaning, anti immigration EU countries, they're not obsessing over EU immigration, only non-EU immigration. It's only the UK where the single market and customs union is an issue.

Brexitters seem to believe that leaving the EU won't stop us trading with them, or damage us economically (considering that's 50% of our trade, we'd be in trouble if it does).

But that it would magically insulate us from an economic collapse in the EU.

Sorry, I have some really bad news for you. If the UK does in some way manage to avoid economic oblivion by maintaining that huge level of trade with Europe, it's going to be absolutely screwed regardless if there is an economic collapse in the EU.


Re: RE: Mooseman

It's amazing how they argue that with computers and technology they can make the Irish border completely seamless and invisible such that it's virtually non-existent and definitely not carving Ireland in two.

And yet, when it is suggested that this completely and invisible border be moved to the middle of open sea, suddenly it becomes an impenetrable obstacle that is ripping the UK apart.


Re: RE: Mooseman

"Of the two sides we can get what we want unilaterally by just not participating in the project (aka leave). "

And this is going to achieve the frictionless trade that UK factories and farms need for their survival, not to mention to avoid the UK starving?

Don't tell me, Donald "Rip up the WTO" Trump is going to do you a good deal? The only good deal he's going to do you is if you sleep with him then threaten to go to the papers.


Re: RE: Mooseman

May probably is a poor negotiator. But she's got a shit hand to play. That hand won't get any better if it's Boris holding the cards and threatening to flounce out unless he gets to have his cake and eat it. He'll get nothing except 27 boot prints on his fat arse and an economic blockade.

The Boris shitshow would last about a month before the UK starves, there will be mass protests, the pound will collapse and the UK would be begging the EU to let it back in.

Banging your fist on the table and talking tough is only going to work if the other side thinks you have the tools to actually carry through on your threats. Unfortunately nobody except the most deluded of brexit jingoists thinks the UK can last more than a few weeks of hard brexit before it's at the table begging for a single market / customs union deal. Would be far better to do it now, before the chaos, and before more Japanese and UK companies move operations permanently to mainland Europe.

UKIP doubled price of condoms for sale at party conference


Re: standard, small, large

Yes, Nige tests them all with whichever European lady he's currently cheating on his wife with. No need for 'experts'.



I thought that being a misfit virgin with unattractive appearance and poor personal hygiene is all part of living the UKIP dream. Condoms? They should be so lucky. They ought to be selling pornography and cheap easily washable socks.

Scrapping UK visa cap on nurses, doctors opened Britain's doors to IT workers


Re: What's that sound ? Brexiteers expoding.

I have read the EU immigration rules very extensively as they apply to me and my family (Brit resident in EU). I am not aware of anything in the Schengen rules regarding this. And my wife is an immigration lawyer in the EU, so she knows the rules pretty well.

The closest I have seen is that Switzerland was facing being kicked out of the single market after a narrow referendum result to limit EU/EEA immigration, which is not permitted under its single market access treaties with the EU. Needless to say, in the end the Swiss backed down to avoid economic oblivion (are you watching Mrs May?) but were permitted to require that vacancies are advertised first locally, thereby effectively favouring those already resident in Switzerland (but not just the Swiss, any EU/EEA nationals already there). But Switzerland is a Schengen country, so this doesn't really indicate that Schengen residents would be favoured. For example, a Portuguese national in Portugal is a Schengen resident, but would have no advantage over a UK resident in applying for a job in Switzerland.

UK getting ready to go it alone on Galileo


Re: Cooperation

I think this is only part of the story.

More than anything, most votes outside of a general election are seen as an opportunity to protest - and give the PM/government of the day a black eye.

Cameron went out and pushed for a 'remain' vote. So a lot of people who didn't really care much about Europe one way or the other (it was previously a very marginal issue, only of interest to some wingnuts in the Tory party) went out and voted against what Cameron told them to do, instinctively.

Much was made about Labour constituencies voting for brexit. Recently, polls have indicated these places have switched en masse to 'remain', and against brexit. Various pundits have explained this as people there realising the end result is not what they were being promised. But I'd suggest the reason the shift is biggest in those labour constituencies is simply because brexit is now quite clearly a Tory party policy, so they're now instinctively against it.

If there is a second referendum, we have to hope Theresa May recommends people to vote 'out'. Because that will be guaranteed to get those labour constituencies that voted leave to turn out for 'in'. And that should sink Brexit, May and even Corbyn in one fell swoop. Result. No wonder they don't want a referendum on the actual deal, and prefer to accept the one which promised an unrivalled new era of prosperity instead of the now more realistic "not the end of the world".


The UK doesn't even have one constitution. At least not in writing, so the government of the day largely does as it pleases and gets its own lawyer to say it's fine.

And look at the mess this has got us in.

Surprise! VAT, customs likely to get a bit trickier in a Brexit no-deal world


Re: There costs to Brexit.

I worked for a German engineering company in the late 90s. We used to truck large air handling units from Germany to romania overland, and it used to take days, as they'd get stopped at every border for several hours, sometimes up to two days at romanian border (before many of those voted countries joined the EU).

Now the stuff goes on the truck and is on site the following morning.


Re: See the bigger picture people

But you can't make your own rules. What part of 'WTO rules' did you not understand? You think the British parliament makes those rules?

And what do you think happens if you break WTO rules? I'll give you a clue... it won't be a British judge in a British court deciding Britain's punishment.

Ecuador's Prez talking to UK about Assange's six-year London Embassy stay – reports


Re: Makes no sense

"It would be an insult to Sweden to ask it for such assurances, because if Assange is extradited under a European Arrest Warrant then the receiving country cannot extradite him without approval by the sending country. "

Firstly, I don't think the issue of Sweden taking offence is really important. They might say it's not required, but if they have no intention of doing it, and it avoids confusion, just do it. As I pointed out, many other countries, including the US, give assurances - that they won't consider the death penalty, or evidence obtained by torture - when those may usually be permitted in the country. So they are essentially prejudicing the case, in order to obtain the suspect. In the case of Sweden, if they have no intention of extraditing Assange, then it really makes no difference to the case they claim to wish to pursue against him - the UK is not asking for assurances regarding that at all. Which makes the refusal for the UK to ask for assurances or the Swedish to give them hard to explain. Maybe they're happy with the status quo, since Assange is effectively now in prison indefinitely without internet access?

Regarding the European arrest warrant, indeed the UK would have to give permission. But who would be required to give such approval? The UK government? Or the courts? That's important, because there have been high profile cases where people have been prevented from being extradited from the UK by the UK courts (Abu Hamza springs to mind, but also some hacker cases) against the wishes of the UK government. So in the case of Assange, that probably needs to be settled. Would the UK courts be entitled to give it the same scrutiny they would if it was a direct extradition to the US?

If it could be confirmed that the UK courts would get the final say on whether to give permission to Sweden to extradite Assange to the US, or have jurisdiction to hold the UK government to account and prevent them from giving such a decision, then Assange would clearly be no worse off in Sweden than in the UK, so his arguments would be baseless. But if it is purely down to the UK government, and the UK courts have less jurisdiction over that than they would if the extradition was from the UK to the US, then it's reasonable to say that Assange would be at more risk of extradition from Sweden to the US than he would from UK to the US, taking account of recent decisions by the UK courts over extraditions to the US.

Sweden giving an undertaking would of course nullify any such arguments. As would the UK making clear that any permission to Sweden to extradite Assange to the US would be subject to the UK courts on exactly the same basis as if Assange were being extradited from the UK to the US directly. I.e. that he would be at no more risk of extradition to the US from Sweden, than he would from the UK. In which case, if those are the intentions, why not just make them clear by giving undertakings, and get the process moving?


Re: Makes no sense

"It would be an insult to Sweden to ask it for such assurances, because if Assange is extradited under a European Arrest Warrant then the receiving country cannot extradite him without approval by the sending country. "

Firstly, I don't think the issue of Sweden taking offence is really important. They might say it's not required, but if they have no intention of doing it, and it gets the extradition done, what's the problem? I'd happily give an undertaking not to do something I had no intention (or believed could not do) if it gets a stalled situation moving. And as I pointed out, many other countries, including the US, give assurances - that they won't consider the death penalty, or evidence obtained by torture, when those may usually be permitted in the country. So they are essentially prejudicing the case, in order to obtain the suspect.

Regarding the European arrest warrant, indeed the UK would have to give permission. But who would be required to give such approval? The UK government? Or the courts? That's important, because there have been high profile cases where people have been prevented from being extradited from the UK by the UK courts (Abu Hamza springs to mind, but also some hacker cases) against the wishes of the UK government. So in the case of Assange, that probably needs to be settled.

If it could be confirmed that the UK courts would get the final say on whether to give permission to Sweden to extradite Assange to the US, or have jurisdiction to hold the UK government to account and prevent them from giving such a decision, then Assange would clearly be no worse off in Sweden than in the UK. But if it is purely down to the UK government, and the UK courts have less jurisdiction over that than they would if the extradition was from the UK to the US, then it's reasonable to say that Assange would be at more risk of extradition from Sweden to the US than he would from UK to the US, taking account of recent decisions by the UK courts over extraditions to the US.

Sweden giving an undertaking would of course nullify any such arguments.


Re: Makes no sense

Never understood why sweden wouldn't just give an assurance not to extradite him to the US? Other countries give assurances all the time - the US even has to give assurances not to execute people to get extraditions from Europe. That and the way the charges were laid, withdrawn then laid again by a different prosecutor in a different city looks off.

Assange is undoubtedly a slimy shit with clear political motives outside of his stated goal of openness and transparency. But this case has never looked very solid. If there really was no prospect of extradition, why did sweden give the rascal an excuse to say it was all about getting him to the US?

Not sure anyone comes out of this with clean hands.

I predict a riot: Amazon UK chief foresees 'civil unrest' for no-deal Brexit


make up your minds

Today we have Jeremy Hunt saying the public will blame the EU if there is no deal. And we also have JRM insisting that 'no deal' is likely but no big deal and nothing to worry about.

Since they've had two years and failed to agree among themselves on exactly what pie-in-the-sky customs arrangement they present to the EU to reject, it's hardly surprising they can't come up with a consistent position on whether it's going to be a shit storm they'll have to try to blame on the EU, or will be fine so best not to worry about.

How about those saying it'll be fine reassure the public by making clear that if the pound drops below parity to the EUR inflation rips to over 10%, and the economy does go into recession, they'll admit they were wrong and put their full support into joining EFTA (because the EU surely won't have the UK back).


Re: eh?

Since the 'leave' vote was skewed towards the over 60s, it's questionable what level of civil unrest they'll be able to cause. Perhaps tutting even more loudly than normal when someone speaking a foreign language or who looks a bit dark gets on the bus?

How much do you think Cisco's paying erstwhile Brit PM David Cameron?



I don't believe Farage was ever elected as an MP. There were two or maybe three UKIP MPs at some point in time, but they were Tory party defectors. Farage had nearly 650 seats to choose from in order to find the place with the most knuckle draggers, and still couldn't get elected.

Indictment bombshell: 'Kremlin intel agents' hacked, leaked Hillary's emails same day Trump asked Russia for help


Re: Society Seems To Be Fragmeting or Declining in Standards

I see this a lot. People seem to think that there might have been some underhand stuff going on, see clear evidence it was funded heavily by countries that are clearly not friendly, and yet are convinced that it probably had no effect. Because it didn't change their minds.

But in important political decisions such as the US presidential race, or the Brexit vote, both of which were very close, it's clear that a marginal effect could easily be the difference between it going one way or the other.

It's like the "350m for the NHS" claim. It was preposterous of course, but it was painted on the side of the bus because the campaign had done their research and knew that there were people who would believe it, and it would pull in more votes than dry claims about signing new trade deals. Yet now, you never find anyone who will admit to believing it, or that it had any effect on their vote. Part of that is because the campaign disowned it the very next day, and basically said that it was obviously a meaningless promise and that only an idiot could have believed they really would save all that money and spend it on the NHS. And so the idiots who did believe it kept quiet so as not to admit to being idiots. Genius campaigning when you think about it.

But the fact remains - if politicians were conspiring with enemy countries to subvert democratic votes, then that most certainly needs to be punished regardless of whether you can prove it had any effect (which it almost certainly did). Otherwise it's like a sprinter getting caught taking steroids but insisting it had no effect on the end result, because he would have won anyway, and the steroids effect would have been less than the margin of victory. It's simply impossible to know that.

UK taxman outlines its CHIEF concerns for customs IT systems


A new golden era of prosperity

We should all relax. Britain is well prepared, indeed, I read today the government are even stockpiling processed food in preparation for the unprecedented golden era of prosperity we'll launch into if we stick to 'no deal'. The europeans by contrast are completely unprepared, the 27 remaining countries of 500 million people aren't stockpiling British food. What are they going to do when they cannot get their Marmite? That should focus minds over there.

IBM memo to staff: Our CEO Ginni is visiting so please 'act normally!'


Re: "Act normally! Ginni and the team are here to see what Austin is really like."

Only of course lord sugar seems to love bullshitters and arse lickers, judging by the candidates he ends up with.

Scrapping Brit cap on nurses, doctors means more room for IT folk


"If we do not have a customs union, there are sectors of manufacturing society in the UK which risk becoming extinct," Mr Dreschler said.

Great stuff, we'll have all these fantastic trade deals with non-EU countries. We won't have anything to sell them. But we'll have fantastic deals, and I think we all agree that's more important.

No fandango for you: EU boots UK off Galileo satellite project


Re: Dictionary anyone?

I think it's also worth saying that when people voted, many brexitters were convinced that the UK would be no worse off, would not lose single market access and so on, because this is what they were promised. So to them, there seemed no risk. They effectively believed that the UK would be able to opt out of freedom of movement, stop paying fees, but still continue to trade as before.

It's clear that isn't the case, even the brexitters now accept this. And yet they still keep using the referendum vote as justification for leaving the same single market they insisted during the campaign we'd remain in.

What the government, the people and parliament need to decide now is which is more important. You cannot have everything you want. So, do you want to control immigration, or do you want to retain frictionless trade with Europe and avoid a hard border in Ireland? Because a vote in which people essentially voted believing they could have both things is now worthless, because it's clear they will not and would never have got both.


Re: Politics..

Perhaps. But if you choose to leave an organization, you don't get to expect to choose which perks of membership you get to keep.

Britain has gone from being an EU member and then constantly wanting to opt out of obligations, to leaving the EU and then constantly expecting to be able to opt back in to benefits. How come when it comes to immigration or ECJ jurisdiction "brexit means brexit" but when it comes to trade, gallileo, standards bodies and so on, suddenly brexit doesn't mean brexit, and we insist we should still be sat at the table?

The UK seems to suggest it will continue to follow the rules of the single market and so on in order to have frictionless trade, while at the same time insisting it won't be bound by the ECJ. That's as absurd as Manchester United insisting it is leaving the premiership, but will continue to carry on playing in the league against the other teams, and will continue to follow the rules, but won't accept the jurisdiction of the referee. I mean, we'd all be happy to trust Mourinho's judgement on whether one of his guys committed handball, right? It's completely ridiculous. If you join the WTO, you have to accept their jurisdiction over disputes. But you don't have to accept ECJ jurisdiction over the single market? You're going to police yourselves? Pffft.


Re: Working as intended

It's amazing. And that is from an "intelligent" brexitter, not the 'keep em out' xenophobic wing.

But like virtually all brexitters prior to the actual vote, he proposed staying in the EEA, so as not to lose the benefits of the single market and CU. Hardly any brexitters campaigned for 'hard brexit'. They all promised the prospect of customs checks etc. was 'project fear', and to be fair remainers typically raised the prospect of trade barriers without really thinking the UK would do that.

It would be really interesting to see Worstall's opinion now that the 'leave' vote has been hijacked by zealots who really want to walk away completely. I'd be genuinely interested if he still thinks the UK will be better off crashing out with no deal, than it would just staying in the EU.


Re: If not doing something because it was "inconvenient" was the ciriteria for Brexit..

It's quite amazing that the people who go on about 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control' seem to have no problem being a member of NATO, where the Supreme Commander in Europe is always an American as a matter of policy.

So handing over command of our own armed forces and the defence of our homeland to a foreigner is absolutely fine. But sitting around a table with the French and Germans to agree common rules on hairdryers is a humiliating subjugation of our once great nation from which economic ruin is a worthwhile price to escape from.



According to brexitters, the EU is a shit show about to fall apart, and yet 27 member states can unanimously agree things like this within a few minutes regarding their brexit position.

Meanwhile the UK can't even agree itself on what its position is, and they spend days carefully drafting compromises in the vaguest possible terms so as to not actually have to decide between one position or another, and keep everyone thinking their preferred plan is still in play. Worst of all, the official opposition condemns the government's handling of brexit, then insists that it would instead negotiate for full access to the single market and customs union to avoid a hard border, while definitely not accepting freedom of movement. FFS, have they not been paying attention the last two years while the government have been pushing this very same policy, with no possibility of success.

So what would the economic effect of leaving the EU be?


The reasoning is that the UK faces a demographic timebomb through an ageing population.

Immigration allows the UK to increase the working population immediately, without waiting 16+ years and having the cost to educate and provide healthcare to children, all the while they are economically not productive.

Of course it does not solve the problem unless the long term balance is being addressed by raising the retirement age. That should have started decades ago, but the baby boomers didn't like the idea of working until 70. But it is starting now. Eventually the retirement age will rise to the point where you have a stable population, with few enough retirees that the working population can support them. The general shift in work from manual, physical work to desk and service jobs, plus improvements in health care should mean many people are perfectly able to work until 70 or beyond. Remember that the retirement age of 65 for men was set at a time when life expectancy was less than that. These days, the average person will spend 20 odd years retired.

Immigration is not the solution, but it is a part of the the solution, in combination with raising the retirement age.

You know what your problem is, Apple? Complacency


Out of ideas

Focusing on quality might be a sign that they'd produced some half-baked code over the past few years. Or it could be a sign that Cook and co have run out of ideas.

I'm leaning towards the latter, considering they're still pushing animoji as a feature. They have a high profile iOS 12 event watched across the world, and they devoted some of this precious time to 'improvements' to animoji!?

The world needs lots of things, but cartoon animations that I can select by gurning at my phone is really not one of them. It's the kind of feature that I'd expect to be knocked up as an app by a 14 year old in a bedroom, which would go down a storm with 12 year old girls in the playground and get the lone developer bought out for a silly amount of money. But it's really not something that should have any place as a core feature in an OS that is trying to focus on quality and performance after quite a few well publicized problems.

Is Microsoft about to git-merge with GitHub? Rumors suggest: Yes


Re: I can't think of anything much worse

Visualstudio.com already offers free private GIT repos for small groups (up to 5 people), and previously offered free open source public repos on codeplex. So I very much doubt they'd charge for public repos on github.

Chief EU negotiator tells UK to let souped-up data adequacy dream die


Re: The more I listen to the EU...

"Absolutely. It's truly impressive how she manages to spin "Scotland is better off out of the UK" and "The UK is worse off out of the EU" as both being right for the same reasons. You can tell she studied Law, and not something like Logical Analysis."

Is it any different to brexitter/tory logic, which is that the union is bad, if it is European, but good, if it's the UK? I mean, the UK actually has far more autonomy and power within the EU, than Scotland does within the UK, not least because unlike the EU, where no country is more than 20% of the population, England is 80% of the UK, so its voters can pretty much determine what happens, regardless of what the non-English vote for. Brexit being a case in point.

Braking news: Tesla preps firmware fling to 'fix' Model 3's inability to stop in time


Re: So

I assume the poor braking performance of the Tesla is related to energy recovery. In order to maximize the range, they're trying to recover as much energy as possible under braking by using the electric motors to charge the batteries, rather than apply the regular brakes and just burn off the energy as waste heat.

But it would seem a bit clueless if they haven't programmed the braking system to be a little cleverer from the start - gentle braking using the recovery system (like F1 cars do when the driver lifts and coasts into a corner) but regular brakes with ABS and recovery if the pedal is hit hard. It shouldn't affect the range figures, as those I assume would generally be done while driving carefully, braking and accelerating gently, etc. rather than ragging it like you just stole it.

Blood spilled from another US high school shooting has yet to dry – and video games are already being blamed


Re: spectacular coverage

Europe was awash with guns after WW2, but somehow managed to remove them from society and become some of the safest countries in the world.

Making something illegal does not stop it happening, but are you proposing legalizing rape and murder? This is not a reason not to have laws. If the laws were never broken, you'd not need them in the first place.

The problem in the US I think is the focus on the big school massacres. The belief that gun deaths are because of mentally ill kids, and that somehow if you can keep an eye on their facebook or stop them playing video games, you'd solve the problem. But the fact is, the vast majority of gun deaths result from the kind of disputes that happen routinely throughout the world - domestic arguments, neighbours rowing over trivial things, road rage, etc. in Europe might result in fisticuffs and someone getting a black eye, but in the US the same red mist ends up with guns drawn and people getting shot. They are not pre-meditated attacks, they're routine disputes which turn deadly only because of the ease of access to firearms.


Re: Early information

After the regular US massacres where AR15s are used, we get the normal corrections from gun nuts insisting it's not an assault rifle. And they're right.

But why don't shooters use assault rifles? We assume they're better for killing people, because the military have them. And they're fully automatic. But the perps don't arm themselves with M16s... instead they go in with the semi-auto, lower calibre AR15. Why?

It's because it turns out the US does have some regulations. It seems to be very hard to get hold of fully auto assault rifles, hence shooters arm themselves with the inferior AR15.

And so this proves two things.

Firstly, gun control works. That's why shooters end up using AR15s instead of the superior M16 the military uses. The argument that bad guys won't take any notice of the law doesn't stand up. If that were true, they'd all have M16s. The problem is, gun control works, so much as they might prefer to have them, they simply cannot get hold of them.

Secondly, there is no constitutional problem with enacting more gun control. There is clearly no problem in the US banning certain types of guns (M16s), or making them incredibly hard to get hold of, to the point where there are very few of them in circulation. So it's simply a matter of where to draw the line.

The problem is really that there are too many people in the US who are wedded to the idea of owning guns, who feel safer, even if they're living in a country 5 times more dangerous than Europe, and politicians who have political and economic connections to the gun industry.

That's no moon... er, that's an asteroid. And it'll be your next and final home, spacefarer


history will repeat itself

They'll get about 50 years in, and suddenly the older generation will decide things were so much better on the earth they left. Because when they were in their 20s, they got more sex, had more energy, had more fun and generally didn't worry so much about dying or having foreign neighbours.

And so while the younger members of the crew might want to plough on to somewhere better, the over 70s will turn the thing around and head back to earth, convinced that somehow, things will be just like the swinging sixties again with the fab four, Joe Lyon's tea shops and Hancock's Half Hour, even though they know they'll be dead before they get there and be inflicting their choice on their grandchildren, who don't want it.

Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister


Re: An insider speaks

While I have reservations about the general trustworthiness of Wikipedia, they have branded the Daily Heil as an unreliable source.

And best of all, here's a link to a Guardian article about it :)


The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

Hurrah for the Blackshirts!


a pointless exercise

Most can see that aside from some swivel-eyed loons in the Tory party who really would go full on hair-shirt hard brexit, the country will ultimately end up backing down and staying in the customs union and single market, or just cancelling brexit completely.

Because the government has done nothing in terms of extending customs facilities at ports, hiring new staff, training companies how to fill in export paperwork, commissioning upgraded computer systems and so on. Which indicates that it has absolutely no intention of actually leaving and trading on WTO rules, and indeed, could not possibly do so because it hasn't got the facilities to, and it would take years to create them.

But the two years of acting like twats, being rude to the rest of Europe, and threatening to take our ball with us is having real consequences, and will continue to do so after the strop ends and the UK reluctantly capitulates to common sense. Would outside investors ever feel safe putting a big investment in the UK, when there are still a lot of old racist people left to potentially decide to have another strop and flounce out again at the drop of a hat?


Re: come and get me!

The law of unintended consequences, politicians really should read Freakonomics.

Impose tuition fees to recover the costs of education (though obvious not on the politicians themselves, who all got their degrees for free), then look puzzled when the people all decide to take the education, then leave to avoid paying for it.

So not only do they not get the money, they don't even get the trained person either.

The true victims of Brexit are poor RuneScape players


let's not worry

I think remainers should give up, at least until April next year.

Just let May and the whole clown car get on with it. I mean, they're getting a total kicking from the EU, but that's because the EU knows the UK is bluffing about walking away. Because the UK has done absolutely nothing to actually prepare for hard brexit. No investment in port facilities, no new computer systems, no tenders for new computer systems, no new customs staff hired, no extra training, no training and information to UK companies on how to handle export paperwork, etc. It needs years of preparation, and they've done nothing more than absolutely fuck all.

It's pretty clear the UK has no choice but to utterly capitulate, because brexit as well as being a clownish idea, is being implemented by the very same clowns who pushed it in the first place. And they haven't got a fucking clue.

They'll either sign a completely one sided deal with the EU out of sheer desperation, that basically is EU membership in all but name (and voting rights) - just so they can say they delivered - or they'll cancel it. Because 'no deal' would be akin to an economic blockade, and the UK would collapse in a month or two, if it didn't starve first.

The EU is a rules-based organization, with 27 remaining members, so it's simply not able to play fast and loose with its rules to accommodate the UK's desires. The UK on the other hand can do whatever it needs to do, and will do. Humiliating as it will be.

So just chill. Less than a year to go before Johnson, Gove and co's lies and impossible promises are laid bare for all to see.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019