no LP no comment
phew! I saw this story accreting on google news without any sign of El Reg joining the party and thought (with an inner John Thaw growl) "Lewis!"
16 posts • joined 1 Aug 2008
There are complicated and interesting issues here, and I don't propose to address them. But I do agree with the lady from Zero Tolerance: I think there should be charity calendars showcasing (in brief but brilliant essays by twelve victims) the braininess of women who have suffered domestic abuse.
Funnily enough, the "partnering" agreements by which private-sector motherfuchsias like EDS screw over the taxpayer ALWAYS have a clause expressly excluding the creation of a relationship of partnership between the private-sector motherfuchsia and the agency of state. They also contain clauses whereby the private-sector motherfuchsia promises to work with the agency of state in a spirit of like-minded woolly helpfulness so as to achieve the objectives of the agency of state quickly and cheaply, and these clauses are _actually expressed in the contract to be not intended as binding obligations_. I have seen this nonsense with my own eyes. What is more, agencies of the UK state are encouraged by their own internal guidelines to enter into these sorts of nonsensical agreements INSTEAD OF ordinary contracts with nice binding obligations on the part of the supplier to do a decent job. Gah!
Is it just me or is there a general groundswell of feeling to the effect that 2010 is actually in this decade? This would be correct if decades only get brought forward a year once you can start referring to them by reference to the number in the tens column (i.e. once you get to the twenties), so that in each century
(i) the first decade is the years '01 to '10 and the second is the years '11 to '20, in accordance with the general principle that things that come in tens get numbered 1 to 10 rather than the bonkers "0 to 9" idea propounded by all those charmingly impatient people who celebrated the turn of the millennium a year early,
(ii) the year ending 20 is both the last year of the second decade in accordance with (i) above and also the first year of the third decade (being the twenties), and
(iii) the year ending 00 inhabits no decade at all because the last decade of the previous century was the nineties and the first decade of the centruy at hand comprises the years '01 to '10 in accordance with (i) above.
I second the point about this being the same author who gave us that excruciating nonsense about EU law and sub-contractors the other day. I commented on that article too but the moderator saw fit to ignore my views. Reg, keep this author on by all means, because he rootles out stuff that is worth thinking about, but please either edit out his opinions or don't put his articles in the "Law" section. I promise you (as a lawyer) he really doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.
Lots of love,
"clearly sucker punching the price of an innocent airline (at least with respect to its current financial status) is evil"
This is not at all clear to me my friend.
Limited liability companies exist to do capital's dirty work. If you want me to feel sorry for your capital, take moral and legal responsibility for what it does.
While you are all being awesomely impressive mathmopedants, may I ask why "finding these numbers" is plural? Drop the "e" from "have" and it would be like Molesworth. And I don't mean the engineering formulae guy. And yes I can start a sentence with a conjunction. [Implodes.]
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020