Re: Deliberately obnoxious
Tolkien didn't turn in his grave.
4584 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Jul 2009
Sitting in a hotel room in Moscow one evening, waiting for the bar to open, I put the telly on and tried to find a news channel (I only know a few words of Russian but it might have been enough to catch the headlines on international stories). During my channel-hopping I came across an episode of Porridge, dubbed into what I think was Romanian and then subtitled in Russian. I spent a happy 20 minutes trying to work out what the Russian-via-Romanian equivalent of 'Naff off!' was.
The police have been using facial recognition since forever, with terrible error rates throughout.
Now, now, be fair. Over the decades a number of police forces have shown that their constables have a far greater ability to recognise black faces than white.
About 70 yards. I remember working that out at school -- (1760*1760/640)^0.5 -- because I really had no feel for how large an acre was and couldn't have looked at a patch of land and told you its area. But once you can picture how long a sprint track is, or even imagine yourself taking 25 paces and triple it by eye, you can start to make a reasonable estimation by proportions.
and we most certainly did not get a referendum on the sweeping political changes and dilution of sovereignty brought about by the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties
That's because we're a parliamentary democracy where it's understood that referenda and elections only ever provide a degree of legitimacy for a limited time. The 1992 general election was won against the odds by John Major and was seen as vindication for his policies, including Maastricht. Certainly Brexiters had no problem claiming that the government brought into being by the 2017 general election was an indication of popular support for the Conservatives and the DUP, united by Brexit (and a billion pounds of taxpayers money, but let's not complicate matters). You don't get to claim it both ways, sunshine.
As more information comes to light we have the right to re-evaluate our opinions. This is why the 2016 referendum is not necessarily the last word on the matter. We now have a hardline Tory government which represents only the view of two-thirds of Tory party members, not that of the country as a whole. You can tell that this is true because the new government has decided to manipulate affairs so that Parliament is side-stepped, because it simply dare not put its policy to the test.
provided the result of the previous one actually gets enacted.
And if the result of that referendum is going to create widespread harm but little common benefit then surely it is better to hold another referendum giving us the option of stopping that great harm before it takes place. Your position is analogous to insisting on cutting off someone's foot because it can always be sown back on later.
Crapita are already drawing up a bid. The bid itself will cost £10m to draft, £42m to enact and 26p for the success assessment exercise. After the bid has been accepted and just before the printing presses are due to be started, Crapita will go cap in hand to government and claim that the entire enterprise is at risk of failure unless the government guarantees to underwrite the scheme at a cost of a nominal £48m. Once the information packs are ready to put into the post the guarantee cost will rise to £64m and the legal battle will start. On 1st November the success assessment exercise will show that the project was an outright success, even though an independent survey indicates that only 17% of the packs were sent out and 61% of those arrived on the 30th October. The legal battle will conclude in 2024 with the government conceding defeat at a cost of £6m to the taxpayer. The £64m will be paid. Crapita will continue to receive further government contracts during this entire period and beyond.
Surely it would have to be best of three right?
Why would it have to be? You seemed perfectly happy for the 2016 result to be enough to overturn the 1975 result.
Can you see the flaw in your logic yet? I sincerely hope you don't code!
Oh dear. You're going to have to step away from that compiler, unless you want to declare yourself a hypocrite.
Speaker of the House John Bercow, forgetting his nominal neutral role
The Speaker is only required to be neutral with regard to political partisanship. The Speaker is, however, absolutely required to uphold Parliament's role in our constitution, hence the archaic tradition which emulates a newly-elected Speaker being dragged from the party benches against their will to sit at the Speaker's bench. This display of unwillingness dates back to the English Civil War when Parliament stood against the King and MPs had good reason to be in fear for their lives.
One of my aunts was a GI bride. She and her husband visited us in the UK several times in the 1980s and early 90s. My dad took Johnny to the Shuttleworth Collection at Biggleswade once, which he greatly enjoyed although it brought back mixed memories. My dad recounts him standing by the V-1 exhibit, saying to another old fellow next to him, "I remember being underneath one of those goddamn things when the engine shut off." The bloke replied, "Ja?"
After that, if you'll pardon the pun, they got on like a house on fire.
I think you'll probably end up having to reassess your opinion. What we're seeing is the supernova itself, not the stellar remnant. There is going to be a black hole behind the expanding wavefront we're seeing now. Normally a supernova cools down after a few months but this one has stayed hot for several years, and that's what's interesting about it.
rolling around in a soup made of ingredients we can't even fathom
But we can fathom it. Not everything by any means, and we may never know what else is out there in our light cone, but we've got a pretty fair understanding regarding most of what we have spotted so far. Some current puzzles will be solved when new information comes to light and some things we think now are explainable by a reasonably sufficient working model will be overturned by new discoveries. The real worry would be if we thought we knew everything or couldn't know anything.
left wing socialism
I wondered why you needed to prefix socialism with left wing but then remembered that there is a difference. Left-wing socialism redistributes everyone's money amongst everyone according to their needs while right-wing socialism redistributes everyone's money to the already wealthy.
Maybe it's time to set up my own forecasting company.
Some days it seems like the only investment required to do this would be a hundred quid to register with Companies House and about the same to be spent on the purchase of a crystal ball and some chicken entrails.
While most home users know better than to open attachments in unsolicited emails or download files from untrusted sources, employees on work PCs can at times be far more reckless in their behaviour
And based on personal experience I have to wonder how close a correlation there is between the salary of the employee and the reckless behaviour.
Harmonising the guns involved the armourers lining up the cannon (one or two in each wing, if any) and the machine guns (up to four in each wing) so that each battery (of cannon or guns) had a focal point at a given distance, which was then reflected in the setting of the gunsight so that the fighter pilot could readily work out what weapons to use and at what distances (the combinations could even be customised to the way that pilot preferred to fight). The armourers would do this on the ground, testing the spread against targets on a range.
I'd have fucking loved that job. Analytical and casually destructive!