Re: We come in peace ...
If the instructions we send are anything like those for flat-pack furniture I hate to think what the results would be like.
7402 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
the instructions on how to use the parking brake were on page 200!
A few years ago my wife got a new mobile phone. Not even what we'd now call a smartphone, although it could do email & basic browsing (remember WAP?) on its tiny screen.
She bought it primarily to be able to make phone calls, the instructions for doing that were on page 80 of the manual, after all the info about choosing ringtones, etc.
You did not need a calculator or a ready reckoner (anyone remember those?)
I still have an old copy of Newnes "Everything Within" probably from the early 1930s. It has £sd ready-reckoner tables in the back. Fascinating reading in many ways, such as the chapters entitled "Careers for Boys" and "Careers for Girls"...
Phone numbers have been subject to sporadic modification since the phone was invented. The largest change I can remember was the conversion to all-figure numbers, more like 50 years ago than 30. I suppose the 1992 change must have been the additional digits required because of the unforeseen size of the address space.
Indeed, and apart from the need to print new letterheards it mostly 'just worked'.
If only IPv4 -> IPv6 could have been as simple...
it certainly could add a significant amount of extra time.
Like the way that my car insists on looking up the driver profile on a server somewhere in the cloud every time I unlock it? If my wife unlocks it with her key it then has to download her profile and replace mine with it, so that it can move the seat & mirrors to the right place, and change the radio presets... This all takes 60-90 seconds, before I can actually do what I unlocked the car for, which was to drive somewhere.
12 years ago I had a car with similar functionality, but with the data stored locally. 3 seconds to swap profiles, it was done before I even got my seatbelt on. This is progress?
The UK has, for decades, been spending significantly less than other European countries on healthcare
Not correct. According to the OECD the UK spends 10.3% of GDP on healthcare, which is above the EU average of 8.3%. Sweden (10.9), France (11.2) and Germany (11.7) do spend more, Belgium & Austria about the same as the UK, the others spend less. Outside the EU, Norway and Switzerland spend more. These figures have remained largely unchanged for the past 10 years.
The UK is easily in the top 20% among European nations.
Of course, one important thing to consider is where this spending comes from. The UK has a health service that is entirely funded from public money, which has both good and bad points. In France, on the other hand, the government (taxpayer) only pays about 70% of most medical bills, and most people are expected (required, if they're employed) to have insurance to make up the shortfall.
The UK has NOT reneged on fishing quotas, some French fishermen simply refuse to produce the proof that their government agreed to when it signed the withdrawal agreement. Most likely because, following the time-honoured principle of l'exception française they chose to ignore the requirement to keep such proof as not applying to them. Other countries have no problems, it's just a few irréductibles Gaulois...
How do you define should be? It has to be a balance with other public spending and taxation. Since UK life expectancy has grown from ~70 to ~81 over the past 60 years, healthcare is obviously working.
There's no consistent correlation between funding and party politics. For the period 1950 - 1980 investment in real terms (allowing for inflation) consistently went up during Tory governments, and down during Labour ones. For the 1980 - 1997 Tory period it dipped then rose again. During the Blair years it grew to an historical high, since then it has returned to close to the historical average of 3.7% above inflation.
There's no defunding, by stealth or otherwise, it's still steadily increasing.
I think it would have been much more prudent to try to reform the EU from within
We spent 25 years trying to do that, but even with the help of allies it was a doomed task against the federalist mindset of members like France and Germany
rather than just sabotage the whole project, breaking European unity
But we're not a part of it now, any such sabotage and loss of unity is down to the other members now. The UK can't be responsible for the behaviour of Hungary. After all, we left, we surely can't expect to have any influence, isn't that what we're constantly being told? Cake & all that?
Better to be inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in.
Better to leave the tent & piss in the latrine, surely?
The reality is that the UK voted to leave the EU and no longer has a say in how it is run.
No, the reality is that the UK left the EU under the terms of an agreement negotiated between the two, and it has a perfect right to expect the EU to respect that agreement. It should not have to put up with the EU dragging its feet in one area as a way to apply pressure in another.
I won't bring up that Brexit thing and the dire consequences it has had ...
Dire consequences?
It's not even two years since it happened, far too soon to draw any conclusions on its outcome. Most countries that leave a larger political group take a decade or more to re-establish themselves, you probably won't be able to make any full analysis of Brexit until 2030 at least.
For the moment it's clear that there have been some issues where things weren't thought through, they need to be worked on, but most of the doom & gloom predicted by the remainers has not come to pass.
Remember Thatcher and the coal miners?
Very well, and it wasn't the same situation. It may have started off as a protest against the ending of a dying industry, but Scargill hated the Tories with a passion and soon realised he could use the striking miners as cannon fodder in a war to bring down the government. No elected government could tolerate that, and although the miners were being told that "one more push" could get Thatcher out, the reality in the rest of the country is that people were fed up with unelected unions trying to control how the country was run.
It's no surprise that the breakaway union, objecting to being told by their leaders to strike when they had voted against it, called itself the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. Remember also that after the government faced down the protests, they won another landslide election victory two years later.
If someone in their office was careless enough to leave their workstation unattended, a favourite jape was to configure a root cron job to trigger a cuckoo clock on the hour. By noon they, and those near them, were often found looking for wire cutters for the internal speaker.
The only reason that fuel costs of a BEV are cheaper than petrol/diesel is that the latter includes fuel duty which brings £30bn a year to the treasury. If electricity for cars was taxed at the same rate it would be little if any cheaper. The government (of any political stripe) won't pass up that income, so sooner or later BEVs will cost the same per mile as ICE vehicles, either through tax, road pricing, or some other scheme.
Yeah. Same problem with people who object to new roads because the country is "already covered in too many of them". It isn't, if their width was shown on maps to actual scale they'd be almost invisible, so they get drawn not-to-scale as thick lines which gives a totally misleading idea of how much of the country they occupy.
Still, Betjeman had a point. There are ways to build new stuff without acres of faceless square boxes of grey concrete.