Re: I'm good
The higher rate of pay covers the benefits. Everyone should be taxed equally.
184 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jul 2010
I've had a Z1 for a couple of years and I love it - it's the best phone I've ever owned and really can't see much reason to replace it any time soon.
Would a Z5 tempt me? Not with a fancier camera and fancier screen. However, if they had instead kept the specs the same, but instead focussed on extending the already fantastic battery life from a couple of days to four days, then yeah I'd be pretty tempted by that and it would be almost unique amongst current smartphones.
My Z1 has hardly any bloat and the apps that it does have are actually often used and an improvement over vanilla android. As for the scratchable screen, I always buy a tempered glass screen protector whenever I buy a new phone. They're pretty much scratch-proof and also reduce the likelihood of you smashing the screen.
Full employment is far more effective and sustainable than unions, if you want to achieve improved pay and conditions. And regarding ownership of businesses, the largest owners are pension funds and insurers - we all basically own a large part of them, but not directly.
So what's changed? The main thing seems to be house prices, which kind of links to your recent article on land values in San Francisco. In the UK, until the 1980's houses could be thrown up pretty easily and infrastructure was built in the national interest with precedence over local concerns. I wonder how much nimbyism and it's effect on house building and infrastructure building, has acted as a brake on growth/competition and what effect this has had on inequality?
Also surely the massive increase in women entering the workforce has had an effect. In the 50's if you had two families, both with housewives, but one with an unemployed/low income male and one with an average income male, then the inequality isn't massive. In the 90's if you have two families, one with no earners and one with a male AND a female earner, then the inequality is far higher?
I don't have to suck up anything - I live at the other end of the country and would never be foolish enough to live in that neck of the woods thanks. I just used Cambridge as a good example. And my point was never about half price houses - which I doubt very much would be the result anyway. The reason it should happen in various places is to help the UK economy, by allowing growth.
"Much of the value in Cambridge is because it is a very small very old city with excellent transport links to London, and almost unlimited supply of highly educated people wanting to make a home there due to the colleges. I can't afford to live there, but would love to do so. Double it in size and prices will drop like a rock - it won't be nice anymore and it won't be what it is today."
Mmm, so an "unlimited supply of highly educated people wanting to make a home there", but if you double it's size, prices will drop like a rock because no one will then longer want to live there? And thanks for pointing out that if you make changes "it won't be what it is today". Impressive - you're a Nimby and it's not even your back yard. The main built up area of Cambridge is about 6 sq miles, not much bigger than Heathrow airport. The sky would not fall in if there was (sympathetic) development. If it was well planned it would actually improve the town.
Obviously I wasn't suggesting doubling the size of Cambridge without any infrastructure to support that growth, but councils do charge developers money for infrastructure when they grant planning permission. Government would have to invest money outside this though, for the things that central government are responsible for.
Also I think you could double the size of Cambridge and not see any fall in house prices - you could make it ten times bigger and it would probably still lead to higher prices! The town loses out on a lot of investment due to the planning constraints making it unattractive to business (which is what my point was).
The main problem in the UK is nimbyism. Cambridge is supposedly our silicon valley and produces a nice amount of GDP, but look on a map and it's not much bigger than a village. It could be doubled in size and it would still be a lot smaller than most towns. And yet if that was to happen there would be mass protests and accusations of concreting over the entire UK countryside.
A similar example that I saw on Countryfile yesterday, was company which is going to open a potash mine in North Yorkshire. The investment is £1.7 Billion (largest in the UK) and when opened it will employ 1000+ workers, account for 2.5% of all UK exports (not potash exports - ALL UK exports) and increase the productivity of every working person in Yorkshire by £1500 per year. The problem is that it's in a National Park, so they are hiding the whole thing and even transporting the potash to the ports in a 25 mile tunnel. Despite this, there are still campaigners protesting against it, because there will be machinery there for a few months while they build it!
Are the schools really that different, or does the wealth of the area lead to the good schools becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy? i.e. the area attracts parents who care about their kids education and are also presumably of above average intelligence themselves (they're high earners). That means the teachers will have a much easier job than teachers working in an 'average' school.
"He's taking extreme positions and finding support, and some of the republican candidates are being forced to echo his positions. Others like Bush are trying to honestly state their position rather than seeing how extreme they need to be to win the primary, but Bush has said he'd risk losing the primary to win the election. "
That's pretty similar to the situation in the Labour leadership election if you ask me. Of course some will say that Corbyn's policies are not extreme, but whatever.
1. Replace existing nuclear sites and double them up (which is already happening to an extent).
2. LED is the future. Just in my house, I replaced the 15 halogens in my kitchen with LED's 3 years ago. They're brighter than the halogens, not a single one has blown and the energy use has gone from 750w to 75w. Most councils are now doing the same with their street lights via a limited scale PFI, because it's an investment that is guaranteed to pay off. It's a no brainer, but regulation is needed to push it in homes and the private sector.
3. Some very old homes are amongst the most inefficient, but most of the 10% are actually concrete homes built after the war. This is the area in which I work and I can assure you that these homes are not in historic conservation areas. Some are currently being retrofitted, but the results are poor and the cost/waste is insane. These houses could be completely rebuilt for not much more money, which would make them far more energy efficient and have all kinds of other benefits and savings.
As someone who works in the 'green industry' and can assure the author that the vast majority of it is indeed 'green crap'. Astronomical amounts of money are wasted. A cost effective and wholly achievable policy to massively reduce emissions would be the following 3 things:
1. Generate at least 75% of our electricity via nuclear and close down all coal fuelled power stations.
2. Promote energy efficient lighting, appliances and vehicles via scrappage schemes and regulation.
3. Tighten building regs and promote rebuilding of the 10% least insulated homes (which are generally concrete blocks which are falling down anyway).
I had problems with my Z1 as well. The usual fantastic battery life went down to about 12 hrs off a full charge and the phone was often hot when not being used. It was also having regular problems connecting to the mail server and the internet.
I found that it was something to do with the mail apps - (I say apps, because I had recently received a notification to integrate gmail with my mail app in some way). I ended up un-installing the gmail and stock mail apps and then reinstalling the mail app - my phone is now back to normal.
Sales staff are well paid because they have the technical knowledge as well as a natural ability in sales, which cannot be taught. Experienced sales staff also have their existing customer base which is very attractive to new employers. It's all about supply and demand and also what you are worth to a company.
You might not think that sales staff are worth what they are paid, so if you was the boss, would you sack them all? Good luck to any business that tries that.
"Good news, but how many of them will decide to waste their skills as accountants or bankers rather than going into IT or science research?"
Why is that a waste of their skills? Even allowing for the global financial crisis, the world of finance has been unbelievably profitable for the UK and makes up a very large part of our exports.
In the last 40 years, the UK has seen 45 months of recession (80-81, 90-91, 08-09, 15 months each time). An 18 year old starting A-levels this year will have experienced 15 months recession.
A more likely reason for the change is the end of student grants at University. When a degree is going to cost you £60k, it makes you think a lot more about what career and salary it will lead to. This also leads them to think a lot more about what A-levels to choose, in order to gain entry onto 'profitable' degrees.
When the population is increasing by several hundred thousand a year and the economy is improving every year, I think it's fair to assume that retail sales are expanding. Though I take your point that new jobs for created by one company are often at the expense of the jobs of their competitors.
"Today it is clear to many that Nation States do not exist for citizens. Citizens are seen as expenses. Resources belong to corporations, who graciously share some of their value with citizens via jobs and even by paying a small overall tax rate."
What are corporations and who owns them? Do you have a pension?
"I might also not be quite, exactly, the right person, as I'm an extremist even by Ukipper standards. Thinking as I do that the EU itself is a bad idea, let alone the euro. So my conclusion is pretty much ordained."
An article on the supposed 'costs' of us leaving the EU would be amusing. The Europhile view that every single job related to EU exports will be lost if we leave, is on about the same level of absurdity as the Guardian article.
"What if the family were treated as guests of the company or were perpetually loaned the use of facilities etc or even paid a loan they never had to pay back?"
There was a similar tax loophole that has recently been closed:
Basically a 'business' could set up an offshore 'employee loan scheme' - which gave 'loans' that were never intended to be paid back.
Levying VAT is a requirement of being a member of the EU. Even more annoying is that the EU take a percentage cut of it. They also impose all kind of rules about how it is applied - for example, the UK wanted to make ECO products VAT free, by the EU said no.
Tim, I can understand your frustration, but it's best to just ignore them and let them live in their weird little world. They don't even understand the difference between profit and turnover, so despite how well you explained your point, their eyes will just glaze over and you'll be accused of being an evil racist kipper or something like that.
My friends Father owns a few high end horn gramophones. In the 90's he made quite a bit of money by renting them to a specialist CD company who were recording old 78 records. Surely the thing that your friends Father found pleasing was the fact that it was using a horn rather than speakers?
"As Mage points out, they control the distribution, the EPG, the STBs, and do their own content/channels - that's one hell of a cliff to climb for any would be competitor."
That was one hell of a cliff to climb for Sky as well. Same with Virgin media. It's also the same cliff that BT is currently climbing. Anyone else with pockets deep enough is free to do the same.
It's extremely difficult to build on green built nowadays, despite our desperate need for housing. Strangely the 'environmentalists' actively encourage wind turbines and the transmission lines required, which are often in the most beautiful areas of the country and yet they cry if a new housing estate is built on the edge of a town as 'it's destroying beautiful countryside'.
With some housing I would support a system of offset, where areas such as the Welsh valleys are 'depopulated' (I'm thinking rehoused, not gas chambers!) and new housing built in areas where they are needed and where they are jobs, even if it is greenbelt.
Going back to pylons, if it keeps the pylon fanatics happy I'd even go so far as to say that 25-50% of the total pylons could stay, for example in heavily industrialised areas. But across a ridge line in open countryside? No thanks.
A one off cost of £7.2 billion for removing a blight from massive areas of the UK as well as providing a more reliable system and creating a serious number of jobs?
Sounds like a better deal than the £20 billion cost of fitting smart meters to every UK home. Or the 30-40% added to every customers energy bill due to the various "green" schemes such as burning trees imported from the US, or the ludicrous wind turbine subsidies, or the fields of diesel generators paid to back up the wind turbines.
I hate pylons with a passion. I don't care what it costs or how inefficient it is, I would vote for a political party based purely on a policy of burying the cables. And don't get me started on wind turbines!
I'm amazed by how few people have an appreciation of the beautiful British countryside and that we allow these damn things to be planted across pretty much any and every area of the UK.
I don't think he's trolling, because in the UK it's a commonly held belief that you can only have one insurance policy on each car.
In fact there's no law stopping you having as many policies as you like, but some companies have their own rules in place which prevent multiple policies and if you have a claim, then obvviously you can only claim on one policy.
That's not quite true. It's only really in the last 18 months, than I could buy a phone that can run a sat-nav app smoothly at the same time as receiving e-mails/texts/calls.
What we're seeing is exactly what happened with digital cameras - rapid annual progress where it was worth upgrading almost every year, until they got so good that it's very difficult to justify upgrading at all.
I have a Z1 compact - for my needs it's almost the perfect phone.
The Z3 seems very similar except for screen res and PS4 remote play, so if you aren't bothered about those things, it might be worth looking at a Z1. You can pick them up brand new for under £150 unlocked at the moment if you shop around.
So it;s okay because he's a scientist? I'm not in the slightest bothered by the shirt, but I'm highly concerned by the double standards shown by Register commentards. If a UKIP candidate wore the shirt, would there be a similar outpouring of sympathy for the person in question to wear what they like?
I'm not a scientist or a UKIP supporter, but when it comes to "political correctness" the rules should apply to everyone equally. Isn't that the essence of equality?