Re: Not really surprising
Redirecting comets from the Kuiper belt to hit Venus will contribute to both.
What do you mean "metric"? I'm sure it said miles. So where's it going, then? What, THAT New York? Oh f***
7408 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
if you're billed a "level" then you tend to use that level regardess (all you can eat conundrum). That's why most places meter your kWh
France meters kWh, it's the "standing charge" (In Euros, not Coulombs!) which varies with the agreed level. If you order a 6kW connection you'll pay less, but run the risk that it will trip if you boil a kettle at the same time as the oven & hot water heater are on. They even have special circuit breakers that can be set to the pre-arranged limit and will shed less important loads to stay under it.
it will be interesting to see if a fire suppression system had been installed.
According to at least one article in the French computer press they just had ordinary water sprinklers every two racks, no misting or gas system. Sounds more like a level of protection suitable for a shop or hotel than for a DC.
or have taken the time and thought to create new neutral forms (eg, firefighter, chairperson
I agree in some respects, but not with "chairman". There are many words in English where the reference to "man" is from a Latin root, not a German one. In those words it means "hand", as in "manual" -> something done with the hands. "Chairman" doesn't relate to a putative man sitting in a chair, but to the person (sex unspecified) whose hand is on the chair, i.e. who is in charge. In that sense "chairman" is neutral, and the usages of "Mister Chairman" and "Madame Chairman" are still appropriate
And has anyone told the French that gendered language is a bad thing so they are required to rewrite their entire language?
And you probably thought you were joking...
A) "Racism" is this context has long bypassed ethnic identity in any objectively definable way, it's become a way of saying xenophobia for people who don't like long, complex words ( almost everybody),
Perhaps if they're to lazy or stupid to understand words like xenophobia they should reconsider whether they have the intellectual capacity to vote in a constitutional referendum?
B) Too many British don't discriminate -they're all just "Forrins"
Hmm, and you accuse us of xenophobia?
C) There was a very deliberate campaign stirring up fears around Turkey joining and letting in lots of Muslims..
"Muslim" is a religious distinction, not one of race or nationality. Furthermore, most of the anti-Turkish sentiment comes from France and didn't really impact Brexit.
I'm not Scots or Welsh, so I don't have any say in it. I think that it would be a pity to break up a union that has existed sucessfully for centuries, and that independence would be economically disastrous for Scotland (and worse for Wales), especially if they ended up with a hard border, but it's up to them. It would be advantageous for the UK treasury, and make Tory majorities at Westminster much more likely, so from that point of view I'd support it!
The Channel Islands are part of the UK (I'm not familiar with the Isle of Man's status).
That Channel Islands are not part of the UK, they, and the Isle of Man, are Crown Dependencies, self-governing possessions of the British Crown.
They were also a part of the EU economic system
They were part of the free market for goods only, not services, and channel islanders didn't benefit from free movement rules.
the EU is a long story starting with In 1951, the Treaty of Paris.
Yes, I'm well aware of it's history, but you're taking my comment out of context.
The ECSC developed into, eventually, a European Community, which worked tolerably well. It was turned into the EU by the treaty of Maastrict in 1993, and that is where everything started to go downhill. The French barely accepted it, the Danes rejected it, and people in the UK didn't get a vote because it would clearly have gone solidly against it. If you're going to argue that Brexit should have been subject to a 2/3 majority than I would say that the kind of constitutional change implied by Maastricht should also have been subject to that, in all of the then-members. It would never have passed, and we wouldn't be in the current situation.
Those same people - and whatever they have between their ears - voted for Brexit.
And that's not driven by racism in any way, is it?
If you actually think that people in other EU countries are of a different race then you should perhaps be considering what you lack between the ears.
The vast majority of people in Western Europe are of the same race, and most of the race-related conflicts that are seen in the UK concern relations with immigrants from countries in the Caribbean and the Indian subcontinent, very few of which are in the EU. Whatever issues might have motivated people to vote for Brexit, only a fool would see race as one of them.
Of course, there is a word for people who see race as the root of all problems. It's "racist".
it doesn't strike me such a good thing for the average man in the street. Who makes the money here?
If your idea of the EU is limited to making it easier to go on holiday, or post a parcel to your granny, then I agree, it doesn't help the man in the street in their immediate daily life. The EU plays to that, of course, by bigging up their successes like phone roaming, easy travel, etc. (all of which could have been agreed without the EU) and ignoring all the things that aren't working.
You need to look at it from the point of view of the 28 member countries. The big strength of Europe, in my opinion, is due to their differences. Countries like France, the UK, Italy, Sweden etc. all have the same broad aims, but very different ways to achieve them. Some are very socialist in all ways, some very liberal. Others are socially conservative, but support a free market, others are protectionist. We all learn from each other, and contribute to the whole. That is what we had with the Common Market & later European Community, a group of co-operating neighbours in a free trade zone. It had its flaws, the CAP for one, but it basically worked.
Since Maastricht, though, the drive has been to a common model, one parliament, one President, one currency, a central bank, central court, EU army. All forced into a one-size-fits-nobody pattern that destroys those differences that make us stronger. Inevitably that leads to centralizing on the lowest common denominator, mediocrity and stagnation because no-one is free to be different. The politicians won't see that, though, they see a centrally controlled empire run by them as the perfect solution, where we all do what we're told and live happily ever after. They ignore the pitiful growth, weak currency, etc. that has bedevilled the Euozone since it was created
That perfect Union can't happen, of course. Look at the COVID-19 fiasco. Each country is trying their own lockdown model, closing borders and imposing their own travel rules, while Brussels bleats plaintively that we need an EU solution, but can't produce one that works, so it is ignored. France is enthusing about getting to 2m vaccinations per month by March, the UK is already doing 2.5m per week because it isn't waiting for 27 governments to agree. All they'll ever be able to agree on is some "mostly harmless" compromise that suits no-one, but doesn't upset anyone enough to reject it either. It's not the way to build a truly prosperous future for the "average man in the street".
Is it to isolate Isle of Man and Jersey from too much EU scrutiny?
The Channel Islands and the IoM are not part of the UK, nor have they ever been in the EU, so they are the least affected by Brexit.
why on earth was such an important decision with such a wide ranging impact on everything in the country left to a simple majority vote? This should have been a two-thirds majority from the start.
The same should have been true for creating/joining the EU, but most people didn't even get a vote. Hardly surprising, even europhile France only voted for the EU by 51% of a 70% turnout.
If we'd had a 2/3 rule then, we'd never have got into the mess that Brexit was intended to get out from, but it would not have been reasonable to insist on a 2/3 majority to leave when a simple majority sufficed to create/join it
what kind of state must I now be in
Many years ago a friend of my Dad was watching TV one evening when one of those medical "your life in their hands" programmes came on. They were operating on someone with lung cancer, and when our friend saw the state of the lung tissue that was being cut out he crumpled up his cigarette packet, threw it on the fire, and never touched a cigarette again.
Fry's used to be a regular point of call when I was in the Bay area, if only as a way to while away some evening time keeping jetlag away. The Palo Alto store was more oriented towards computer stuff, Sunnyvale was more along the ones of a Dixons/Comet (for those on this side of the pond). In the 90s they had lots of computer and electronics stuff that couldn't be found in high street shops in Europe, other than places like Tottenham Court Road but over the past 10-15 years, though, that changed and buying in the US also stopped being significantly cheaper. Saving 50% made it worth the trouble of transport, short guarantees or the need to swap the wallwart PSU, but with only 10% difference it wasn't worth the hassle. That, and the empty shelves and unhelpful staff described above made my visits shorter and less frequent.
Still, it's a rather sad sign of the end of a general era. Weird Stuff warehouse went a few years ago, Halted (HSC) has gone, others like HRO seem to be closing stores.
in favour of Dividends.
Businesses have various ways of raising money for investment, they can borrow from a bank and pay interest, they can sell shares and pay dividends, or they can be nationalised and be financed by raising taxes. There's nothing inherently wrong in paying dividends to investors who have risked their money, and arguably it's a lot better than paying interest to bankers.
BT also decided not to pay dividends this fiscal year, due to the economic climate. Try telling your bank that you've decided not to pay their interest charges, and see what happens.
The real question is what they spend the money they raise on, and BT's investment and profit figures aren't that different to other companies of its size. Unlike some of the venture capital-financed unicorn companies they actually have a valid business model.
nationalization of all ISPs.
I assume you didn't live through the period in the UK when phone service was provided by the nationalised GPO? No investment, party lines, 300bps modems as standard and illegal to connect your own equipment? The one thing worse than a private monopoly is a state-owned monopoly.
I'd guess that most of the attendees at this conference are there to represent their companies, and are on expenses, so doesn't this presuppose that those companies would authorize the travel? Even were I minded to go (I'm not), there's no way under COVID rules that my current employer will be authorizing anything but essential business travel this year. This sort of junket wouldn't be on that list.
Targeted advertising is an exceptionally powerful tool
Properly targeted advertising may be, but targeting based on "you looked at holidays in Spain last year, so here are more Spanish trips for you" is useless. I probably want to go somewhere else this year.
Maybe if they could say "you went on a hiking holiday in the Alps, and seemed to enjoy basic hotels and Michelin 2 star restaurants, so here are some gourmet walking trips you might like in the Rockies" it would be useful, but I have no desire to give random businesses that much info about my lifestyle. When I want that sort of holiday I will contact the businesses that I think could help me, I do not want or need them to harass me.
I also dislike advertising, but we can't get away from the fact that it pays for much of what we have. Before all the various subscription platforms arrived it used to be calculated that UK independent TV got 3x - 4x as much income from advertising as the BBC did from the license fee. Remove it, and the money has to come from somewhere else.
Targeted advertising is so badly done as to be a waste of time, most targeted ads I see seem to be based on previous purchasing history, and as you say why would I want to see an ad for something I already bought? I have occasionally bought something as a result of an advert, but that was something I didn't know I wanted :) Targeted advertising would have been useless there.
But then it seems the corporate interests seem to be paramount in America,
Not just America. Businesses aren't charities, someone has to pay for their products or there wouldn't be any products.
In general, authors of FOSS are interested in users privacy, not selling their details to anyone prepared to pay for nefariously obtained data.
"in general" people are nice, but it only takes a few bad apples to create problems, and those are just as prevalent in the Linux FOSS world as they are in the Android/Windows/Mac ones. It would be very naive to think otherwise.