
Re: Wait, what?
But it's not fair dealing as the image in question has nothing to do with the news report.
75 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Nov 2011
Why do people keep quoting a non-science program like 'Mythbusters' as 'proof'?
Most of the time they don't even attempt to go into any details of the physics involved and a lot of the 'simulations' are nothing like the actual situations they are trying to prove\debunk. You always get the impression that they have decide the result in advance, and are fitting the tests to match.
It's an entertainment program, thats all.
By the time the input reaches 'Lyonnaise de G' and the search has worked out it's an insurance company...
Google does not just autocomplete words, it autocompletes phrases (or more accurately appends secondary keywords), but, as others have pointed out, why is this company so closely linked to the term 'crook' in the first place?
And if a conviction does exist against them what right does a court have to help hide this fact? (Can company convictions end up 'spent' in France?)
Using interest to determine costs in the 'aircraft carrier' comparison is a bit lame as it does not take into account actual fiscal resources available.
Try government expenditure as per http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk
HMS Victory (1865)
£63k out of a defense budget of £6mil (total gov spend £12mil) = ~1% (.5%)
HMS White Elephant + HMS Back Hander (2010 figures)
£7bn for 2, out of def budget £43bn (gov spend £660bn) = ~8% (.5%) per ship
When you spead the costs out over design\build time then the difference closes even further.
The price is over three times as much as the american equivalent - www.newsinhistory.com - which does not have 'credit' restrictions. (I've used it a few times in the past)
Plus the OCR has done its usual job of garbling things from the looks of it.
Wish someone would do a 'guttenburg' with all the old newspapers. Which is what the BL should be doing anyway.