Re: "I hate them."
"Turn the drippings into real gravy for the spuds."
Don't forget the Yorkshire puddings which, of course, are a starter.
33022 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"The US's controversial "Section 230" makes companies liable for user-generated content that could be linked to human trafficking and coerced sex work. In practice, this has led to overzealous self-policing"
It doesn't seem to have had any effect on Usenet pimp spam from Google Groups, more's the pity.
"Getting paid way more than a permy doing the same job, just pay more tax and be done with it, or go permy and get paid the same as your peers, simple."
Usual reply: If it's as simple as that why are you permie (it's obvious from your comment that you are)? Is it that you don't fancy the risks you were so quick to dismiss?
"Telling people how easy it was for you to save just a few months worth of salary for a deposit isn't helpful,"
It wasn't easy. It never has been and I'm sure it never will be. But house prices (and they determine land values, not the other way around) are driven by how much money is available to put into them. Mortgages depend on combined income? Of course. Back in the day it was more common for there to be a single wage-earner; now there are two that means more money to go into the housing market so the prices go up.
House prices are high because interest rates have been determined by cost of living indices that exclude them. The result has been cheap money that's gone into bigger and bigger loans. The credit crunch should have drawn finance ministers' attention to that folly. Did it? No, of course not because cheap money is a vote winner as long as the voters don't connect it with their escalating house prices.
"Yet 50% of graduates are doing non graduate level work"
That's largely a feature of Blair's idea that 50% of school-leavers should go to University. Was there any chance that there's be that number of traditional graduate jobs? Of course not. But it massaged youth unemployment figures nicely and, in typical Blair/Brown financing, the costs were postponed by student loans.
"Historically the net result is more jobs"
I'm not sure whether that was true of the mechanisation of the textile industry or not. It increased jobs in the N of England and Belfast. I'm pretty sure it must have destroyed a lot of jobs world-wide but I don't know what the balance was; I doubt anyone does.
"When my father was a boy the family would pass an order to the local shop and it'd get delivered."
In a rural setting when I was a boy a local business (I'm not sure they even had a shop) sent a salesman round to take orders which were delivered by van a couple of days later. A number of businesses were based on simply going round districts with vans - a cousin of my Dad's ran a mobile greengrocery. Once the private car has been hounded out of existence it's a model that can make a come-back.
Certainly, a mechanised loom might push down the income of a hand-loom weaver, but it creates a whole new industry of skilled loom-makers & repairers. In turn they look for ways to spend their money, and ironically we end up in a situation where people who can will now pay more for hand-made goods than for those made on industrial machines.
In fact the introduction of the power loom lowered the price of woven cloth; cottons in the NW of England, worsted & then woollens in my part of the world and linen in Belfast. The consequence of that was that the size of the market increased and employment in weaving rose.
The question, similar to that raised in the article, is to what extent this displaced employment elsewhere. In England the West of England and East Anglia seem to have suffered (worsted takes its name from and East Anglian village) and there may well have been an impact elsewhere in the world. The ROTW got its revenge, of course, as manufacturing moved abroad from the old UK centres.
Another factor to consider is that there are limits to growth. The regular reports of doom and gloom in the computer and phone markets as replacement cycles grow longer is an indication of that. So although historically there has been a growth of jobs with mechanisation it hasn't necessarily lasted, at least not in its original locations.
You can't. But if you're the FTC you might be able to collect a tidy sum in back-dated fines.
Alternatively you could order the businesses to be split in other ways. For instance chop Microsoft into Operating systems, Application and Online businesses.
"Oh pull the other one mate!"
OK, I've told this one before but I'll have to trot it out again.
Client had a couple of Unix boxes running an industry-specific application. One box was a hot standby for the other, production box. The version of application they ran was not Y2k compliant. Note that "not", A/C. There was a Y2K compliant version available and would run on the main box but not on the standby which had an older OS version and wouldn't accept an upgrade. The OS itself wasn't a problem, of course; it was Unix. The problem was compatibility between it and the later release of the application.
My job was to set up and oversee UAT of two new boxes that would run the new version. This was accomplished in good time to cut over between Christmas and New Year.
The accountants threw a wobbly. They wouldn't accept running on the new, "untried" setup in January because it was a critical time for finalising their year end. In retrospect this should have been scheduled for a few weeks earlier so we could have got it out of the way before year end. The penalty: we had the vendors dailling in just about every day for the couple of weeks or so before we could cut over. They had to keep fixing the data errors which occurred due to running a non-compliant application.
So, yes, the problem was real and my client's beancounters put us to significant trouble to prove it.
Don't forget that Joe Public has a chance to decide the case under the UK system. It's called a jury. There is also scope for a preliminary hearing to evaluate the case and this is not only an open procedure, it's also a proceeding in which the accused can challenge evidence.
Not much chance of conviction? Then you're not charged as going to trial is 'Not in the public interest' i.e. too expensive.
Maybe there are other issues apart from expense. Imagine ou find yourself accused of something you didn't do. What would be your preference for avoiding the risk of being put on trial - a grand jury with prosecutors presenting evidence in a proceeding in which, without your ability to defend yourself, they're trying to persuade a bunch of laypeople of the case or one in which (a) experienced lawyers can decide the evidence isn't convincing and (b) a preliminary hearing in which you can challenge the evidence?
"I fail to see what is bizarre about this concept."
Seeing as you provided a munged link I'm not prepared to follow I can't be sure of the details. But assuming the one-sided, closed door bit is correct - and from reports of other grand jury cases with sealed verdicts & whatnot it appears to be - that, to me, is bizarre.
Wigs or not, a preliminary hearing in open court with the accused able to be represented is the only fit way to do this in a democratic society. That's why we ditched it years ago.
At an antiques fair there was somebody selling a Leica Olympic. I made a note of the serial number engraved on it and sure enough it checked out for 1936. But Leica never made an Olympic - Zeiss made a 180mm f2.8 Tessar lens for the Berlin Olymics, not Leica. It turns out some guy in Poland is taking Russian Leica knock-offs and knocking them off a bit more.
The underlying problem is a financial industry that assumes that sales of anything will grow forever. They won't. They can't. That's why we're seeing the likes of Microsoft trying to switch customers to some form of subscription, cloud, anything that keeps the money rolling in irrespective of whether it's of benefit to those customers. If they fail to do that their share price, built on the assumption of growth, will tank. Markets need to price shares on the basis of short term growth, medium term peak, long term ticking over.
My problem is a Leica R4 and several superb Leica lenses. The bar stewards have simply abandoned their old customers. So far I haven't seen any sensible option to allow the use of my old lenses on a new digital camera. The new Leica S digital range can take the old lenses with an adapter - about £250!
"reading road signs to set the limiter."
I'd like to see how that would work here. I live in a network of lanes which can be accessed from 30mph and national speed limit roads and can be navigated between the two without any road signs at all.
I also wonder how it would cope with the stretches of the A75 with 40mph signs with a rider applying it to HGVs. Or the change between MPH & KPH at the Irish border.
AN idea with too many built-in assumptions.
"They are either paid by the defence or persecution - the bias is built in."
I'm not sure that my role was being paid by the persecution as you put it but there have been numerous occasions when I would say either I couldn't find any evidence or the evidence was contrary to what was assumed. I've also been in the position in the witness box where I was fending off the prosecuting counsel's attempts to make me put more weight on the evidence than I considered it would bear and ultimately rescued by an objection from the defence.
One of my former colleagues went into private practice. Last time I called in to see the old firm I found he was back in the fold. His explanation was that he couldn't think of enough reasons why bad boys shouldn't be in gaol.
"in UK cases there's normally only one expert witness that both prosecution and defence share"
Having spent about 14 years in a job where it was my role to be an expert witness I don't recognise that situation at all. True we were usually called by the prosecution but there were a number of instances where defence experts came in to examine my or my colleagues' work. Sometimes we had to show them how to operate the microscopes & so forth...
Maybe things are different in the civil world but as I read it it doesn't seem to have been the case here.