I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
Maybe if the government's efficiency minister experienced this inefficiency first hand he might actually try and fix it.
Start with the contract that bills the government £1,300, for a car and driver for one day.
Is that not part of the Minister for (In)Efficiency's official remit?
Appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg to this particular position, is proof positive that Boris Johnson indeed has a sense of humor.
Way more persuasive than "his" past writings (dreck & drivel) or his recent public performances (stale & stagnant).
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
I used to have one. Entered a lot of stuff in the uni library on it. Would fit into the poacher's pocket of a Barbour oiled canvas coat. I could convert the data and transfer onto a PC and PCW (though quite how, I forget).
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Anyway, in other news my grand-niece is out of hospital and apparently thriving. They think they caught the sepsis early (though they have no idea where a newborn got it...)
From the little I know, sounds like a good job from the hospital and 111 service.
Yippee!
Someone at work had their baby born with a serious knee infection. Weird.
To be on topic - said baby was fixed very quickly, and my experience with the NHS has been excellent (operation, physio, + an ongoing issue that they like to get updates on). GP booking used to be useless, but they now have an online triage and people like me, who only phone up when things get really bad, get seen immediately (within 2 hours once, to my manager's frustration!).
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
So even worse than normal Festival time? I remember the streets having to be hosed down after clearing of litter, junk and general theatrical crap as I walked to my office in the morning in August
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
He'd have needed a car at the Wales end unless he was meeting someone at Pret A Manger. That's another £150 odd. Not vast but it all mounts up. If the chauffeur was already on a full time salary too, that makes a difference.
If you think taxis in Wrexham cost that much, I advise you to move there and work as a cabby.
You'll starve, as everyone else will be charging about 7% of that. But it sounds like good money while it goes.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:
If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?
Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.
Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.
We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.
I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.
People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.
It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
No one is being made to do anything. But if they wanted to do those things they'd have to pay for it.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
£98.10
Off-peak return. Euston to Wrexham General.
Isn't that prole class? He'd want to go first.
I was thinking more he'd need to travel at peak time.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
It's meaningless bollocks. Notwithstanding the fact that it's almost certain the SNP would never entertain the possibility of a formal coalition at Westminster, it does nothing at all to prevent Labour from entering into any other arrangement short of one. It changes nothing in practice, it's just a performative gesture aimed at the gullible.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
It's meaningless bollocks. Notwithstanding the fact that it's almost certain the SNP would never entertain the possibility of a formal coalition at Westminster, it does nothing at all to prevent Labour from entering into any other arrangement short of one. It changes nothing in practice, it's just a performative gesture aimed at the gullible.
One also wonders why their definition of 'nationalist' doesn't include unionists, aka British nationalists.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
So even worse than normal Festival time? I remember the streets having to be hosed down after clearing of litter, junk and general theatrical crap as I walked to my office in the morning in August
Way, way worse. This is Leith!
I think it's worse down here as all tenements , so people dont have space to store stuff.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
"We can take comfort in the fact that our governing party is both experienced and successful."
I'm not sure how much of this is deliberately trolling, and how much is down to the average Mail reader being so thick or so demented that they actually buy this bullshit.
Given the average age of a Daily Mail reader I wouldn't rule out dementia.
I would rule it out. The Daily Mail is a phenomenally successful news website - the 6th most visited in the world (English language)
The Mail website and the dead tree paper are two quite different things though. The former is a very successful vehicle for advertising sales driven mostly by celebrity clickbait pap. The latter is bias confirmation targeted at reactionary old farts.
In US there is a Daily Mail TV show, aimed at the same clickbait crowd here in America, the young and lucrative demographic mass niche advertisers (if that's not a contradiction!) crave. The British connection is clear but with plenty of woke (from perspective of Leon & Col. Blimp)and virtually zero jingo.
Note that on Daily Mail TV on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) you will NOT see & hear any Meghan bashing. IF covert then very much so, and little of it.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
We've still got a Z88. I was using it a few weeks ago.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
So even worse than normal Festival time? I remember the streets having to be hosed down after clearing of litter, junk and general theatrical crap as I walked to my office in the morning in August
Way, way worse. This is Leith!
Ah, quite (central Edinburgh looks quite normal to me in photos for Festival time). Though the strikes elsewhere are much briefer. They're certainly making a point of Edinburgh CC at this time of year.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
£98.10
Off-peak return. Euston to Wrexham General.
Isn't that prole class? He'd want to go first.
I was thinking more he'd need to travel at peak time.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
We've still got a Z88. I was using it a few weeks ago.
I'm surprised the keyboard is still OK in terms of the plastic rotting.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
You and I both know this is more about presentation than politics. Starmer is determined not to be pilloried as Ed Miliband was in 2015 - indeed, I'd argue it was the fear of a Labour-SNP Coalition which did so much to decimate the LD vote and hand the Conservatives a majority (which of course led to its own problems for Cameron).
If Starmer can unequivocally distance himself from the SNP he has more chance of winning the English votes he needs to overturn the Conservative majority. As for what happens after the votes are cast, I recall David Cameron saying three days before the 2010 election he would not do a deal with the LDs - the day after, he was offering a full and open negotiation to Nick Clegg.
As I often say, what a politician says before the votes are cast often bears little resemblance to what happens after the votes are cast.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
It's meaningless bollocks. Notwithstanding the fact that it's almost certain the SNP would never entertain the possibility of a formal coalition at Westminster, it does nothing at all to prevent Labour from entering into any other arrangement short of one. It changes nothing in practice, it's just a performative gesture aimed at the gullible.
I wonder if there are any parties who actually want any sort of formal coalition at Westminster now after the Lib Dem experience.
I daresay most would figure informal relationships might be necessary or desirable in specific circumstansces, but formal ones?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
It's meaningless bollocks. Notwithstanding the fact that it's almost certain the SNP would never entertain the possibility of a formal coalition at Westminster, it does nothing at all to prevent Labour from entering into any other arrangement short of one. It changes nothing in practice, it's just a performative gesture aimed at the gullible.
Look at Mr Sarwar's coming out with a similar gesture in Scotland before the local elections and now it's all unionist coalitions all over the place.
But in general cricket is thriving. The Indian Premier League is one of the richest, and most watched sports leagues in the world. I’ve just been reading the stats. Incredible sums
It can only be good for cricket that money is flooding in. Yes it will change the sport but this means sport will survive and prosper and attract young kids, creating the stars of the future
Eg I’ve realised that the IPL money could save West Indian cricket. As we know windies cricket has been on a long downwards slope and many Caribbean boys are playing basketball and looking at the NBA
With the money you can now make in cricket (without having to be 7 foot tall) they will surely return to their first native sport: cricket
The money means cricket will expand globally, as well
I adore cricket. This summer has reminded me of that. It’s great that it prospers
And I am happy that you enjoy it!
Cricket is hugely civilising. It is also highly cerebral. The “chess of physical sports”. It is great for Homo sapiens if it is becoming a dominant global sport
Also YAY ENGLISH SPORTS RULE THE WORLD
Cricket is highly boring and tedious, especially the five day version. That's why hardly anyone outside the Commonwealth plays it.
It is the second most watched sport in the world, and now one of the richest, and finally expanding beyond the old Empire
The right move by Starmer. Otherwise Labour's general election campaign would be derailed yet again by the subject.
Yes, that’s clever. Close the argument down
Labour are going to win in 2024
That is clever, yes.
I still do despair at the lack of policies though. Maybe that is deliberate, and they are all ready, fully worked through, costed, and checked with groups of voters, waiting to be announced as soon as there is a GE.
The energy price cap freeze is a notable and positive exception.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Lots of constitutions can be changed by a simple act of the legislature. Israel and New Zealand are two that spring to mind immediately. A few need a supermajority in the legislature eg Finland. Are those not “real” constitutions?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
You and I both know this is more about presentation than politics. Starmer is determined not to be pilloried as Ed Miliband was in 2015 - indeed, I'd argue it was the fear of a Labour-SNP Coalition which did so much to decimate the LD vote and hand the Conservatives a majority (which of course led to its own problems for Cameron).
If Starmer can unequivocally distance himself from the SNP he has more chance of winning the English votes he needs to overturn the Conservative majority. As for what happens after the votes are cast, I recall David Cameron saying three days before the 2010 election he would not do a deal with the LDs - the day after, he was offering a full and open negotiation to Nick Clegg.
As I often say, what a politician says before the votes are cast often bears little resemblance to what happens after the votes are cast.
.. as we are no doubt about to find out with PM Truss once the Tory members' vote is over.
(At least, for the country's sake, I hope we are about to find that out.)
This article reminds me that there is a fundamental problem about the way the NHS is discussed.
Basically everything that is good about it tends to be attributed to a thing called the NHS and everything that is bad about it about tends to be attributed to 'The Government'.
Clearly this cannot be a true analysis, but for lazy journalists stops them having to enquire more deeply, allowing them to present a simple story of saintly nurses and wicked governments, with occasional asides about uncomprehending management.
I wonder how we got into this extraordinary false consciousness.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Reminds me - I know a UK politician who has a rpi 400 setup to do video conferencing. It just slips under the tv/monitor in their office to take up no space when it's not in use. Quite neat really.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Whereas a proper constitution has things like the second amendment permanently embedded.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
No idea. I recall the screen as being about PCW grade, only about 1/5 the top-bottom depth! It was monochrome, LCD, black on a grey background. No way could you look at a pic to check it, so far as I can recall.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Reminds me - I know a UK politician who has a rpi 400 setup to do video conferencing. It just slips under the tv/monitor in their office to take up no space when it's not in use. Quite neat really.
The Raspberry Pi has been a great success story IMO. Over 40 million sold in 10 years. And it is manufactured in the UK (Wales).
"In the meantime, one thing I can’t stand is any advice from MPs or “experts” on how to save money. I don’t want to be told how to cook or what I should buy for 30p, or ways to keep warm, or the best tricks to save electricity. Why do they think they can be poor better than I can? I’ve done it for a lifetime."
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
Invariably these clickbait articles on the scandalous waste of money on everything from travel to Wales to missed doctors' appointments depend on average fixed costs rather than marginal costs. To be fair, this is standard in most companies employing accountants to shift funny money between cost centres.
The reason it cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales is that is the daily rate of a government car and driver, even though the car and driver are already bought and paid for, and the only marginal cost is petrol and the driver's lunch. This is also why it did not really cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales. Except that it did because JRM's department will have been presented with a bill by whichever department runs the Whitehall car pool. And so it goes on.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:
If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?
Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.
Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.
We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.
I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.
People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.
It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.
If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.
The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.
In the short term, we have two options.
We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).
Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.
Those are really the only two short-term options.
In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.
In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
Yes, if we want to turn the UK into a steaming archipelago.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:
If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?
Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.
Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.
We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.
I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.
People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.
It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
They'd turn the lights off and the central heating down. They'd not have a television and PC on standby, music in every room, or regularly charge laptops, tablets and mobile phones.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
He'd have needed a car at the Wales end unless he was meeting someone at Pret A Manger. That's another £150 odd. Not vast but it all mounts up. If the chauffeur was already on a full time salary too, that makes a difference.
I find myself getting very annoyed about stories like this. Government should be regarded as a serious business. It was the tories that started off the thing about stopping first class travel in the 'austerity' years, but it is a totally stupid and insignificant saving. I don't know what the current status of the 'government car service' is but ultimately I would have thought that it is the best way of conducting this type of government business, ie appropriate cars, properly trained and security cleared drivers, private space, Ministers and civil servants can work and travel together, etc. By making this impossible because of the perceived expense, it actually probably makes working arrangements less efficient.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
So even worse than normal Festival time? I remember the streets having to be hosed down after clearing of litter, junk and general theatrical crap as I walked to my office in the morning in August
Friends just back from the fringe tell me Edinburgh stinks.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
15 years of SNP mis-rule!
(only kidding!)
It's actually a unionist coalition in Edinburgh ... though it's largely mediated bu COSLA which is very mixed politically.
Given it's now 21/32 councils, think this comes down on the SNP. Especially as they managed a decent pay rise in England.
21 councils? You sure?? I make it 14, of which some are minority or joint. 14 out of 32, I make it, the rest Unionist but with a few needing more investigation but mostly probably the kind of 'independent' which is really a tulchan Tory.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
EVEL wouldn't stop the SNP propping up a Labour minority government and voting for English laws in return for indyref2. Only an English Parliament would
The right move by Starmer. Otherwise Labour's general election campaign would be derailed yet again by the subject.
Yes, that’s clever. Close the argument down
Labour are going to win in 2024
That is clever, yes.
I still do despair at the lack of policies though. Maybe that is deliberate, and they are all ready, fully worked through, costed, and checked with groups of voters, waiting to be announced as soon as there is a GE.
The energy price cap freeze is a notable and positive exception.
At the moment, no one cares what Labour would do. It's all going to be about the new Prime Minister and her (presumably) actions.
Labour meet in Liverpool from September 25-28 and the Conservatives are in Birmingham from October 2-4. The Conservatives have an advantage in going "last" (why has no one challenged or changed this?) in that they have everyone else's ideas to criticise and no one has a chance to rebut theirs because it's back to Westminster the following week. To be fair, Prime Ministerial speeches to Conference aren't memorable.
Starmer has to play this cleverly - if I were him, I'd suggest saying only a little at Liverpool and putting some meat on the bones later in the year and into 2023 but which time I suspect plenty will be interested in what he has to offer especially after a difficult winter. It may well be we are still more than two years off an election (if the polls are bad, Truss will just hang on like Major or Micawber hoping for something to turn up).
If so, Conference 2024 will be the big rallying time and the Budget in late 2024 will be, I suspect, when Truss plays the tax cutting card.
"In the meantime, one thing I can’t stand is any advice from MPs or “experts” on how to save money. I don’t want to be told how to cook or what I should buy for 30p, or ways to keep warm, or the best tricks to save electricity. Why do they think they can be poor better than I can? I’ve done it for a lifetime."
Actual poverty experts like the JRF do a good job of marrying up statistics with case studies. Advise reading their reports.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
EVEL wouldn't stop the SNP propping up a Labour minority government and voting for English laws in return for indyref2. Only an English Parliament would
That was exactly what EVEL did, and what it was designed for. EVEL would have had to be abolished by Labour. Now, for the nth time, wht did your party abolish that safeguard if it's so worried about the possibility?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Oliver Cromwell wishes to point out that you are wrong. The Crown bit is easily removed.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
We've still got a Z88. I was using it a few weeks ago.
I got one about eight or nine years ago as an experiment, and used it as my main note-taking device.
The only difficulty was getting files from it to a PC. But there's a remarkably active community around it, which is pretty impressive for a device of its era.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:
If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?
Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.
Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.
We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.
I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.
People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.
It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.
If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.
The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.
In the short term, we have two options.
We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).
Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.
Those are really the only two short-term options.
In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.
In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
Yes, if we want to turn the UK into a steaming archipelago.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
Wouldn't be theft. It would be legal by definition. And just think how the C of E began. With an act of mass theft (on your own interpretation).
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
Well Parliament could redefine theft to exclude CoE property.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Oliver Cromwell wishes to point out that you are wrong. The Crown bit is easily removed.
No I am right in terms of our constitution now and since the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. In the Cromwell Protectorate the constitution was effectively Cromwell as Lord Protector in Parliament, though he shaped that Parliament to be compliant in a way even Charles 1st could not do
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
15 years of SNP mis-rule!
(only kidding!)
It's actually a unionist coalition in Edinburgh ... though it's largely mediated bu COSLA which is very mixed politically.
Given it's now 21/32 councils, think this comes down on the SNP. Especially as they managed a decent pay rise in England.
21 councils? You sure?? I make it 14, of which some are minority or joint. 14 out of 32, I make it, the rest Unionist but with a few needing more investigation but mostly probably the kind of 'independent' which is really a tulchan Tory.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
EVEL wouldn't stop the SNP propping up a Labour minority government and voting for English laws in return for indyref2. Only an English Parliament would
That was exactly what EVEL did, and what it was designed for. EVEL would have had to be abolished by Labour. Now, for the nth time, wht did your party abolish that safeguard if it's so worried about the possibility?
No it didn't, as a UK Labour government without a majority in England could simply have repealed EVEL. It would have been more difficult for it to abolish an English parliament
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
Of course:
Now, would it be a preferred media device? Would it be as easy to read PB as some other form factors?
Nope. But it would be fine for note taking, email replying, to do list sorting, spreadsheet wrangling, light web browsing, and the like.
The screen would be the same size (roughly) as two large phones end-to-end. You could use the complete width for a web site, or you could have it tiled with two or three apps in different vertical panes. Perhaps Slack on the left, email on the right, and PB in the middle. Modern screens are so high resolution, you be amazed what you could fit in there.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.
Edinburgh update - the situation with the bins is seriously bad now. My street has cleared a couple of parking spots to pile waste up.
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
15 years of SNP mis-rule!
(only kidding!)
It's actually a unionist coalition in Edinburgh ... though it's largely mediated bu COSLA which is very mixed politically.
Given it's now 21/32 councils, think this comes down on the SNP. Especially as they managed a decent pay rise in England.
21 councils? You sure?? I make it 14, of which some are minority or joint. 14 out of 32, I make it, the rest Unionist but with a few needing more investigation but mostly probably the kind of 'independent' which is really a tulchan Tory.
Ah - I thought you meant SNP controlled councils. Sorry. The 20 councils with strikes is of course simply the ones where enough workers in the respective depts voted to meet the legal minima.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
Quite so. Hyufd sits here year after year saying we Tories can do what we like because majority innit. Sauce goose gander.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
EVEL wouldn't stop the SNP propping up a Labour minority government and voting for English laws in return for indyref2. Only an English Parliament would
That was exactly what EVEL did, and what it was designed for. EVEL would have had to be abolished by Labour. Now, for the nth time, wht did your party abolish that safeguard if it's so worried about the possibility?
Because they haven't got a fucking clue what they're doing
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
You live cheek by jowl with 9 million people. What matter that a few thousand cross the Channel?
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
As always, unionists are completely missing the point - which is that a Labour or Tory minority government would be hopelessly unstable anyway, right fromt he start, however much you try to blame the SNP from your respective points of view.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
EVEL wouldn't stop the SNP propping up a Labour minority government and voting for English laws in return for indyref2. Only an English Parliament would
That was exactly what EVEL did, and what it was designed for. EVEL would have had to be abolished by Labour. Now, for the nth time, wht did your party abolish that safeguard if it's so worried about the possibility?
No it didn't, as a UK Labour government without a majority in England could simply have repealed EVEL. It would have been more difficult for it to abolish an English parliament
But it's against your party policy, and has always been, to have an English parliament.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
You live cheek by jowl with 9 million people. What matter that a few thousand cross the Channel?
Coz they are now Albanian gangsters recruited by drug lords. Literally
I reckon liberals will only wake up to this issue being a “problem “ when “asylum seekers” start raping their daughters. And even then Jolyon Maugham would try and stop deportations
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.
Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
We've still got a Z88. I was using it a few weeks ago.
I got one about eight or nine years ago as an experiment, and used it as my main note-taking device.
The only difficulty was getting files from it to a PC. But there's a remarkably active community around it, which is pretty impressive for a device of its era.
This has reminded me - I think mine had a 232 cable which could plug into a serial/parallel socket thingy added to thje back of my PCW, with the appropriate software. Worked similarly for PCs, though I had stopped using the Z88 by the time I upgraded to PCs and never experienced that.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.
Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
No idea. I recall the screen as being about PCW grade, only about 1/5 the top-bottom depth! It was monochrome, LCD, black on a grey background. No way could you look at a pic to check it, so far as I can recall.
GUYS:
A modern version of the Z88 could have a massively larger screen and still fit inside the boundaries of an A4 sized device.
It seems John Redwood is looking for answers to the Winter crisis from his blog commentors - perhaps if he joins the Government they may filter through!
'The immediate need is a further package of measures to cut the cost of energy by reducing energy taxes, and to provide some offset to the loss of spending power from the increase in gas and electricity prices. It needs to ensure those on low incomes are looked after. What would you like to see in that announcement?' https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/08/27/paying-for-energy/#comments
This is Reform UK's Winter policy, and I think it's probably the nearest to my own thoughts for now:
If you want to minimize future UK oil and gas production, that is definitely the way to go.
I don't want to do that. But the effect of prices at the projected level is that many will not be able to pay. That means no money for these companies. They are expecting the Government to step in and prevent that with a subsidy - that isn't the free market in operation is it?
Can you also tell me why renewable electricity providers, whose raw material has not increased in price, should be riding the gas price and charging consumers such excessive prices, and again, expecting the Government to make up the shortfall.
So, renewable energy providers - by and large - are not benefitting from the bonanza. Most commercial wind and solar in the UK is sold on long-term fixed price contracts (via contracts-for-difference). Her Majesty's Government expected to lose out on this arrangement, which is why there is a renwables levy on peoples' bills. Given HMG is currently making out like a bandito on these arrangements (effectively buying wind and solar at £60/MWh and selling it at £250+ (and more than £500 of late). The government should immediately scrap this levy, which would cut bills 15%.
Ultimately, though, energy consumption has to decline meaningfully in the UK. The price of coal has gone through the roof. The price of natural gas has gone through the roof. Our nuclear plants are managing less uptime than was expected.
We need to reduce our demand. All the subsidies in the world don't change the fact that there is a limited amount of coal and gas in the world, and the reduction in supplies from Russia needs to be met with reduced demand.
I would suggest - as I mentioned before - scrapping the renewable levy. I would also suggest that the government looks to make direct grants to the most vulnerable households to enable them to pay their energy bills.
People used to worry about the cost of energy. They used to turn off lights when they left the room. They would never just leave the central heating on when they left the house.
It's hard, but world gas supply has fallen, and therefore demand has to fall too. We - all of us - need to be much more energy efficient.
I don't agree. Use of energy = a growing and thriving economy. Why should people be made to switch their lights off when they leave a room - why should that be anyone else's business? Why should they not have the house like a sauna and prance around in their smalls if they so wish? Why is it acceptable, when technology improves every year, and new sources of energy come on stream all the time, to ask people to contemplate a life of less comfort than their parents enjoyed? And why should this dark ages-recalling reversion of society be sold to people for such an absurd reason as a wish to alter the course of relations between Ukraine and Russia - two of the most corrupt and backward nations in Europe. The whole thing is beyond ridiculous.
The dictionary definition of economics (or so I was told) is "a study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources." There is nothing inherently good or bad about energy usage. It is an enabler.
If I buy a more efficient air conditioning unit that uses less power to cool a room..., then my lower usage of energy does not somehow make the country a worse place to be.
The world currently has a shortage of energy, because the world's largest gas exporter is sending 80% less abroad than it was.
In the short term, we have two options.
We could give in, stop arming the Ukrainians, and I'm sure the Russians would be happy to turn the taps back on (as well as to see sanctions removed).
Or we could be a little more efficient in our usage of energy, because there is less available than there was.
Those are really the only two short-term options.
In the medium term, we can enter into long-term energy supply contracts with politically stable countries. We can also build more solar, wind and nuclear. Storage - gas and coal - would probably also be a good idea. Having six months of gas imports lined up would have made a massive difference.
In the long term, we can also incentivize oil & gas exploration companies to drill more wells in the UK (albeit probably mostly off-shore), and also to look into unconventional sources of energy, such as coal seam methane and shale gas.
Yes, if we want to turn the UK into a steaming archipelago.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
No idea. I recall the screen as being about PCW grade, only about 1/5 the top-bottom depth! It was monochrome, LCD, black on a grey background. No way could you look at a pic to check it, so far as I can recall.
GUYS:
A modern version of the Z88 could have a massively larger screen and still fit inside the boundaries of an A4 sized device.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
But in general cricket is thriving. The Indian Premier League is one of the richest, and most watched sports leagues in the world. I’ve just been reading the stats. Incredible sums
It can only be good for cricket that money is flooding in. Yes it will change the sport but this means sport will survive and prosper and attract young kids, creating the stars of the future
Eg I’ve realised that the IPL money could save West Indian cricket. As we know windies cricket has been on a long downwards slope and many Caribbean boys are playing basketball and looking at the NBA
With the money you can now make in cricket (without having to be 7 foot tall) they will surely return to their first native sport: cricket
The money means cricket will expand globally, as well
I adore cricket. This summer has reminded me of that. It’s great that it prospers
And I am happy that you enjoy it!
Cricket is hugely civilising. It is also highly cerebral. The “chess of physical sports”. It is great for Homo sapiens if it is becoming a dominant global sport
Also YAY ENGLISH SPORTS RULE THE WORLD
Cricket is 3D chess.
Continuing the theme: Chess has 3 time controls - Classical/Quickplay/Blitz. Cricket has 3 time controls - Test/One day/T20.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.
Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures
The fact that a third do really highlights the deficiency in mental health provision.
I hesitate to criticise you @DavidL but that is unworthy of you. Mental health provision is really poor and it causes real problems for those suffering from it and their families. I am one of those as I went through a dark, very dark, decade when my son was seriously ill. We were told at the time that the waiting list even to get considered for a place at the only clinic which really treated his condition was 2 years. This was at the point when through the kindness of a Good Samaritan who called the police he'd narrowly escaped death. So we paid and paid and paid, for years and years. And now, thank God, he is himself again and beginning to live a normal and hopeful life like the rest of us.
But if you don't have the resources, what happens? It is utter misery of a type which if you haven't been through it is hard to comprehend. It is like being in a darkened room with a person howling in pain and trying to find the light switch or the door handle and not even knowing whether there is a door or light switch or if there is whether there is any light outside. It affects the person suffering and those around them. It is no joke. And it is lonely because so many people do treat it as a joke or as made up or as if it's your fault. So you can add guilt and loneliness into the mix. And it is not just a health issue because so many of those who end up in our prisons have mental health issues or their children in foster care.
It is - and always has been - the Cinderella of our health service. But we should do more. We really should. Fat chance.
Feel free to criticise me all you like @Cyclefree , I probably deserve it. My family has had far too much contact with NHS mental health services over the last 25 years, nearly all of which I wouldn’t speak of on a public site. Suffice to say that I would no longer have as many children had we not been able to buy in substantial support when it was needed. I am not making light of it in any way. Those who have had experience of those services find the claimed adoration of the NHS quite incomprehensible.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Conventions can be overridden constitutions can't. Legally our constitution is Crown in Parliament nothing else
Constitutions can be overridden. Even the US constitution can be amended.
Only with 2/3 support in both Chambers of Congress and the support of the President and 2/3 of state legislatures
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
Wouldn't work. The monarch would be arrested for subversion, as with Charles Stuart.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.
It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality
I would vote for any party that gets a grip on the border. It is THE fundamental job of any government. Secure the borders. If the Tories can’t do it, we need someone else with some hairy cullions
Enough of this crap
You live cheek by jowl with 9 million people. What matter that a few thousand cross the Channel?
Coz they are now Albanian gangsters recruited by drug lords. Literally
I reckon liberals will only wake up to this issue being a “problem “ when “asylum seekers” start raping their daughters. And even then Jolyon Maugham would try and stop deportations
Apologies, I was being rather flippant. I'm not saying it's a problem, I'm saying it's not the number one problem.
Efficiency minister Jacob Rees-Mogg spent £1,300 of public money travelling to Wales by car.
A return train ticket would have cost £98.
I have to confess to mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, Rees-Mogg is clearly behaving here like an entitled, hypocritical, fantastically rich prick. As per usual.
On the other hand, if you tried to get from London to Wrexham and back by train it would probably take about a week. Combination of knackered tracks, digging up and replacing knackered tracks, broken down trains, industrial action, connecting services that are deliberately planned so you have to wait as long for the connections to arrive as humanly possible, and about 50,000 other duff excuses for late notice delays and cancellations ("unavailability of train crew" is the favourite at the moment, but anything else, up to and including swans trespassing on the line and signalling equipment being struck by lightning, is also possible.)
Anyone who needs to rely on trains to get around knows how abject they can be, and frequently are.
A return ticket would have cost around £200, so the article is wrong in that respect.
However, Wrexham actually has a very good railway service to Crewe, which is of course the hub of the WCML and amply served by fast expresses to London. So it would only have taken 3 hours 40 minutes with one easy change to get there. Having driven from here to London and here to Rhyl many times, that compares very favourably with the road option.
He was spending the money because he didn't want to be with oiks. No other reason.
Which also means if he wanted to pay £1,300 (what was he using for fuel? Liquid gold?) he should fund the difference himself.
Invariably these clickbait articles on the scandalous waste of money on everything from travel to Wales to missed doctors' appointments depend on average fixed costs rather than marginal costs. To be fair, this is standard in most companies employing accountants to shift funny money between cost centres.
The reason it cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales is that is the daily rate of a government car and driver, even though the car and driver are already bought and paid for, and the only marginal cost is petrol and the driver's lunch. This is also why it did not really cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales. Except that it did because JRM's department will have been presented with a bill by whichever department runs the Whitehall car pool. And so it goes on.
Hang on.
There's insurance, there's depreciation, there's overtime. Plus there's the fact that JRM might be using a driver from the pool. And the fewer journeys there are by ministerial car, the fewer that are needed.
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
I|n that case we'd be in a republic. Only takes a vote.
No we wouldn't, the Monarch would directly dissolve Parliament and force a general election to get rid of it if the Parliament tried to legislate to legalise theft or murder
To be elected by a pro Republic population and end the monarchy
Be ironic if they do that. Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
No they are changing their party constitution there is no written UK constitution. Though ruling out a coalition does not prevent a Labour minority government with SNP confidence and supply in return for indyref2
If anyone says “there is no written U.K. constitution” on here again I’m getting Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction on their ass.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
Yes, but it can be changed. Just like that. Ergo not a proper constitution. The Tories could pass a law that HMG had to be run by a committee of clowns. You see?
Yes indeed. Because part of our constitution is the supremacy of parliament, and within that the supremacy of the commons.
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
Quite so.
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
Except that would be theft as the Church of England assets belong to the Church of England not the state, even if the Queen is its Supreme Governor
It wouldn't be theft if Parliament said it wasn't.
It would, Parliament could technically legislate to make murder legal but it would still be murder.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
Wrong. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. If it's lawful, it's not murder.
It would still be unlawful under the law of God as set down in the Old Testament. We would just have a Parliament of evil with no morality
Right. Aren't you the one who wants to put down any Scottish UDI with military force?
I've been keen to recreate the Z88 design using modern components rather than the Psion Series 5. Basically, a top notch (but silent) keyboard, sitting below a letterbox sized display.
Given the availability of decent SBCs these days and the ability to source displays from China (maybe using the ones used for rear view mirrors), I don't reckon it would be too hard. EXCEPT for battery management. That'd be tough.
The problem is the amount of text that needs to be entered. OSK's are fineish for a tweet of a couple of sentences. I used to write up my walks on a Psion 5 - the text for many of the coastal walks write-ups were done on a Psion 5, and that was bearable. But for large amounts of text, or things with lots of graphics, then a large screen is required - and you're into either phones-or-tablets-with-keyboard, or 10-inch laptop territory.
A Psion 5 replacement would be very much specialist kit. I'd love on, though. I think the late Paul Allen was working on one twenty years ago, but it was never released.
Also: where the Psion 5 really won was from using just two AA batteries and getting tremendous life out of them.
Yes... but what I'm looking for is a form factor like this:
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Is the screen suitable for modern applications though? It's okayish if you just want to enter text, but I doubt you can get any decent GUI on it (*). Say you're a flint dildo knapper writing a review of holidays near archaeological sites in deeper Tibet. You not only need to write some perfect prose; you need to send it along with a few piccies to your editor via email. You think you are technically competent, but get lost with any CLI. Can that format device do it well?
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
Of course:
Now, would it be a preferred media device? Would it be as easy to read PB as some other form factors?
Nope. But it would be fine for note taking, email replying, to do list sorting, spreadsheet wrangling, light web browsing, and the like.
The screen would be the same size (roughly) as two large phones end-to-end. You could use the complete width for a web site, or you could have it tiled with two or three apps in different vertical panes. Perhaps Slack on the left, email on the right, and PB in the middle. Modern screens are so high resolution, you be amazed what you could fit in there.
Yes, but a small high width-to-height rectangular display is *not* good for GUIs. They are reasonable for CLIs.
The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.
What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.
Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...
Comments
Then find themselves under a Tory/SNP coalition because the only possible alternative administration is unconstitutional.
Easy to enter text. Easy to carry around.
Appointment of Jacob Rees-Mogg to this particular position, is proof positive that Boris Johnson indeed has a sense of humor.
Way more persuasive than "his" past writings (dreck & drivel) or his recent public performances (stale & stagnant).
Off-peak return. Euston to Wrexham General.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKZohFOyz_k
Although having said that, perhaps these are more like a modern Toshiba Libretto - they certainly won't run on 2 AA batteries....
To be on topic - said baby was fixed very quickly, and my experience with the NHS has been excellent (operation, physio, + an ongoing issue that they like to get updates on). GP booking used to be useless, but they now have an online triage and people like me, who only phone up when things get really bad, get seen immediately (within 2 hours once, to my manager's frustration!).
And no offence to any PB canines, but I hate those stupid toxic bags of shit that get lobbed all over the shop.
You'll starve, as everyone else will be charging about 7% of that. But it sounds like good money while it goes.
One could also point out that it was the Tories who cancelled EVEL.
It’s uncodified. It’s not unwritten. It’s written in loads of places.
I think it's worse down here as all tenements , so people dont have space to store stuff.
Note that on Daily Mail TV on this side of the Atlantic (and Pacific) you will NOT see & hear any Meghan bashing. IF covert then very much so, and little of it.
If Starmer can unequivocally distance himself from the SNP he has more chance of winning the English votes he needs to overturn the Conservative majority. As for what happens after the votes are cast, I recall David Cameron saying three days before the 2010 election he would not do a deal with the LDs - the day after, he was offering a full and open negotiation to Nick Clegg.
As I often say, what a politician says before the votes are cast often bears little resemblance to what happens after the votes are cast.
I daresay most would figure informal relationships might be necessary or desirable in specific circumstansces, but formal ones?
Be proud of the British Empire!
I still do despair at the lack of policies though. Maybe that is deliberate, and they are all ready, fully worked through, costed, and checked with groups of voters, waiting to be announced as soon as there is a GE.
The energy price cap freeze is a notable and positive exception.
(At least, for the country's sake, I hope we are about to find that out.)
Basically everything that is good about it tends to be attributed to a thing called the NHS and everything that is bad about it about tends to be attributed to 'The Government'.
Clearly this cannot be a true analysis, but for lazy journalists stops them having to enquire more deeply, allowing them to present a simple story of saintly nurses and wicked governments, with occasional asides about uncomprehending management.
I wonder how we got into this extraordinary false consciousness.
(only kidding!)
(*) Cue PBers showing me a 1001 times it has been done...
Which means, for example that parliament can pass laws to ensure that 6 year olds can't get a machine gun for Christmas without a bogus constitutional principle stopping them, aided and abetted by the SC.
Who would you like to be constitutionally supreme instead?
PB poverty experts take note:
"In the meantime, one thing I can’t stand is any advice from MPs or “experts” on how to save money. I don’t want to be told how to cook or what I should buy for 30p, or ways to keep warm, or the best tricks to save electricity. Why do they think they can be poor better than I can? I’ve done it for a lifetime."
On the other hand, it's open to Pmt to declare the C of E a subversive organization and order its assets to be seized asnd turned over to hedgehog hospitals.
The reason it cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales is that is the daily rate of a government car and driver, even though the car and driver are already bought and paid for, and the only marginal cost is petrol and the driver's lunch. This is also why it did not really cost JRM £1,300 to go to Wales. Except that it did because JRM's department will have been presented with a bill by whichever department runs the Whitehall car pool. And so it goes on.
Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet
Labour meet in Liverpool from September 25-28 and the Conservatives are in Birmingham from October 2-4. The Conservatives have an advantage in going "last" (why has no one challenged or changed this?) in that they have everyone else's ideas to criticise and no one has a chance to rebut theirs because it's back to Westminster the following week. To be fair, Prime Ministerial speeches to Conference aren't memorable.
Starmer has to play this cleverly - if I were him, I'd suggest saying only a little at Liverpool and putting some meat on the bones later in the year and into 2023 but which time I suspect plenty will be interested in what he has to offer especially after a difficult winter. It may well be we are still more than two years off an election (if the polls are bad, Truss will just hang on like Major or Micawber hoping for something to turn up).
If so, Conference 2024 will be the big rallying time and the Budget in late 2024 will be, I suspect, when Truss plays the tax cutting card.
They could still be propped up by the SNP without being in a coalition.
The only difficulty was getting files from it to a PC. But there's a remarkably active community around it, which is pretty impressive for a device of its era.
But there's no harm in having some backup energy around, just in case.
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/status/1562771650872893442?t=o9iS7ciOjEiNR2JVV_QsEw&s=19
“In Dover we are heading towards 1,000 young men that have crossed today alone.
The majority are Albanians and many are making aggressive gestures.
This situation is insane, there is no point voting Conservative.”
https://twitter.com/nigel_farage/status/1563517701787893761?s=21&t=GVsGY_jDyjEkILYTS9SYhQ
Enough of this crap
Now, would it be a preferred media device? Would it be as easy to read PB as some other form factors?
Nope. But it would be fine for note taking, email replying, to do list sorting, spreadsheet wrangling, light web browsing, and the like.
The screen would be the same size (roughly) as two large phones end-to-end. You could use the complete width for a web site, or you could have it tiled with two or three apps in different vertical panes. Perhaps Slack on the left, email on the right, and PB in the middle. Modern screens are so high resolution, you be amazed what you could fit in there.
Plus of course the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England would correctly refuse to sign a bill confiscating its assets anyway
Coz they are now Albanian gangsters recruited by drug lords. Literally
I reckon liberals will only wake up to this issue being a “problem “ when “asylum seekers” start raping their daughters. And even then Jolyon Maugham would try and stop deportations
A modern version of the Z88 could have a massively larger screen and still fit inside the boundaries of an A4 sized device.
Chess has 3 time controls - Classical/Quickplay/Blitz.
Cricket has 3 time controls - Test/One day/T20.
Suffice to say that I would no longer have as many children had we not been able to buy in substantial support when it was needed. I am not making light of it in any way. Those who have had experience of those services find the claimed adoration of the NHS quite incomprehensible.
There's insurance, there's depreciation, there's overtime. Plus there's the fact that JRM might be using a driver from the pool. And the fewer journeys there are by ministerial car, the fewer that are needed.
The Z88 had a 64 by 640 pixel display. I assume that means - at most - eight lines of text. Whilst modern screens have much higher resolution, that's still in a relatively tiny size.
What is needed is a killer app. One company I worked for bid for a contract for a ruggedised tablet for BT linesmen and outdoor workers. One of the specs was that it had to be able to be dropped from the top of a telegraph pole and survive. That's a tough spec, even for mil-spec. We didn't win, and I cannot remember who did.
Nowadays they'd probably just put a case on an iPad...