Re: Come Down From Your Ivory Tower
Yes, that 'rare' comment screamed of naivity.
Any power that is available will be used, often just as a fishing expedition, into the affairs of someone the police find annoying - a journo, lawyer, activist.
1183 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
Bottom-pinching was wrong then, too (as Pohl's attitude confirms). It was just that blokes stuck together and ensured that any woman who objected was ridiculed into silence.
You'd only need to ask leches like Asimov whether they'd approve of similar treatment of his sister?
>Since when exactly did a law / regulation / rule actually prevent miscreants doing the very thing(s) that said law (etc) makes illegal?
Classic example - seatbelts. The law changed general behaviour, almost overnight. Some people still break it, but most don't.
Same applies to drink/drive laws, speeding laws
Most people are law-abiding (no matter how much they may disagree with the law). Some people don't give a shit about the law, social norms - or anything at all.
>At least Boris is intelligent.
He's not that smart.
A few years ago, he appeared on a BBC politics prgram (Leviathan), where he sat a GCSE level exam (the prog was examining the myth of 'grade inflation').
He embarrassed himself, and was out-done - by Toyah Wilcox.
One of the important lessons taught at Eton and other 'top' schools, is how to busk through, appearing to know what you're talking about. Throw in a few latin tags and an air of confidence and you can get away with a lot.
>there's nobody in the democrats line up who stands a chance against him
Yet the polls show that any one of Warren, Biden or Sanders would swamp Trump.
These 'leftists' would have been centrists, throughout the 20th cent. Only the GOP's lurch to the far right makes common sense look 'left-wing'.
It's sad that some commentards still seem to take pleasure in rubbishing any option which isn't the status quo. Time to acknowledge that the status quo is not a viable option. This report is saying that even HMG's (relatively radical) plan is inadequate - even if we replace all ICE vehicles with EV (it would help, despite El Reg's headline, but wouldn't be enough).
There are a few realities that need to be absorbed:-
You do not have a right to drive. You may want to, but it isn't a right, just because you are accustomed to it.
You do not have a right to live in the middle of nowhere, and work in the middle of somewhere. It may make sense, if you believe you have a right to drive - but you don't.
You do not have a right to live in territories which are only livable with huge energy expenditures (or by stealing someone else's water).
You do not have a right to jet off to distant climes, several times a year.
You do not have a right to exotic, seasonal foods, all year round (and this includes red meat).
Once you have acknowledged that none of these are yours, as of right, you might be able to find a balance between what you want, and what you can have (bearing in mind you may have to look grandchildren in the eye, one day).
>From what I've seen of "European society" these past 25 years those politicians have done more harm than good
Then you haven't been looking.
Europe is more prosperous, more peaceful, more effective (at controlling megacorporations) than ever before. That wasn't an accident - that's what the Treaty of Rome was designed to do.
Much of that will continue in our absence (though we did contribute quite a lot), but not here. We will become less prosperous, less peaceful and less able to resist the orders of the megacorps.
>to make EVs an effective full replacement for all ICE applications.
Or reduce the number of applications where any vehicle is really necessary.
Some people need to face facts; if ICE cars are no longer acceptable, they'll have to find other ways to work/live. That may include living somewhere closer to public transport - not somewhere only reachable by car.
>no more talent or brain power than your average middle manager
More talent & brain power on a single HoC bench than in the entire Register comments circus.
Nearly every MP goes into politics to make thing better (or, at least, stop them from getting worse). But politics is difficult, complicated and boody hard work. You can't get anything done without power. You can't get power without aggregating yours with lots of others. You can't keep power unless everyone involved gets what they want (or appears to). And then you come up against forces that don't give a shit about anything but profit.
Why does it look so corrupt and chaotic - well, sometimes it is, but quite a lot of our perception of politics comes from the Fourth Estate, who resent politicians having all that power and are convinced they could do so much better, if only they could be arsed to get off this bar stool. So they spend their time slagging of their betters.
>I just struggle to understand the concept of how a country tied to the EU is more free than one that's independent,
One defintion of 'freedom' is the capability to those things you want to do. But the power to do it is a severely limiting factor. Our shared power (in the EU) is massively greater than our national power, outside.
Take our ability to restrict the power of big tech. UK can't do anything much, on its own. EU can. Ergo, freer inside than out.
You could make a 10 y-o child more independent by turfing him out of the home. Free to die.
Organisation whose political life depends on the possibility of a solution, thinks there might be a solution. Yeah. Sure.
There is one aspect of this that needs addressing; the fear is that a hard border would provide hard targets for asymmetric warriors. But, has no-one noticed that AWs have long since developed expertise in attacking 'soft' targets - like intricately-drawn software/data/AI solutions? I'm sure the (A)IRA have.
>there are ways to build safe latest gen nuclear plants
There have always been 'ways to build safe nuclear plants'. Problem is - they cost too much, so there will always be shareholders who don't mind cutting safety corners to boost profits.
Note that UK/US has had no ban on nukes - they haven't built them because they make no economic sense.
What utter bollocks.
>Greenland called that because it was GREEN at the time]
Greenland was called 'Greenland' as a marketing strategy - to attract gullible settlers. Most of it was as white as it is now.
>~1500 AD - the peak of another warming period, particularly noted in Europe
Only noted in Europe. It was a local anomaly. And the temp change was minimal.
> the Thames froze over
The Thames froze over, in part, because it was wider, shallower and slower (not constrained by embankments).
Climate change deniers keep repeating these lies - even though they've been debunked, over and over again.
>So that's all relatively straightforward.
And that's the delusion that got us into this mess. Nothing about life is straightforward (except death). Nothing about politics is straightforward (except that the ignorant will imagine that they could do a better job).
And that's just the normal processes in stable times. In unstable times, such as these, anyone who thinks our problems are 'straightforward' needs a straitjacket.
Bollocks. It was perfectly clear in 1975 that the EEC was a political project. I have a copy of Edward Heath's leaflet, in which he makes this abundantly clear. Also, the central plank of the No campaign's platform was 'loss of sovereignty' (which is why I voted No in 1975).
The Euroseptics started lying about this (along with a steady deluge of other lies) only a few years later.
>based upon a misunderstanding of democracy - which is that we have the democratic right to change our minds (and hence why governments are regularly elected rather than elected once and in forever more).
Quite so. Democracy isn't about arriving at the correct answer. It's about arriving at an answer most people can live with - until the next time. No opportunity to change our minds == no democracy.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021