Regarding cash vs electronic. I believe "try using your phone if systems go down" was the retort.
OK, so I go into a shop. Power cut. They aren't taking cash payments either because their tills aren't working. BTW phone payment is not reliant on an internet connection anyway.
Are you sure about that last point? My local Co-Op has lost Internet several times fur to scrotes nicking cables, and they can take cash perfectly well - but not card or phone.
Internet? You don't need an active internet continuous internet connection for contactless payments. How do you think they work on trains and planes?
Anyway, we are talking about very occasional scenarios. For the vast majority of the time contactless works flawlessly. Indeed, I can tap for any amount, whereas with the physical card I cannot.
Yes, it's miraculous how the the PB Luddites continue to cite isolated edge cases that I have never experience in ten years of cash free living in the UK.
Regarding cash vs electronic. I believe "try using your phone if systems go down" was the retort.
OK, so I go into a shop. Power cut. They aren't taking cash payments either because their tills aren't working. BTW phone payment is not reliant on an internet connection anyway.
Are you sure about that last point? My local Co-Op has lost Internet several times fur to scrotes nicking cables, and they can take cash perfectly well - but not card or phone.
Internet? You don't need an active internet continuous internet connection for contactless payments. How do you think they work on trains and planes?
Anyway, we are talking about very occasional scenarios. For the vast majority of the time contactless works flawlessly. Indeed, I can tap for any amount, whereas with the physical card I cannot.
Well, I might suggest you ask my local Co-Op why, when the scrotes nick the cables, they become cash only. I'm sure they're only doing it because they want to lose business.
A press event will be held today at 11:00 a.m. to announce the unsealing of an indictment charging Robert Menendez, U.S. Senator from New Jersey, and his wife, Nadine Menendez, with bribery offenses in connection with their corrupt relationship with three New Jersey businessmen. https://twitter.com/SDNYnews/status/1705210541717807243
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
I find it quite hard to fathom how Russian authoritarianism works. We generally assume that Putin can merely decide the result, noting the actual figures privately as useful info. If so, why would he care about the election? It's like the supposedly solid censorship, which periodically lets a liberal or a right-wing nutter say something "unhelpful" without consequences, while people can get arrested for trivia. Others here may know more, but my impression is that it has elements of half-functioning freedom which Putin can suspend at will but would probably be unwise to suspend too widely at once.
But I still think it's unlikely that the election is a major factor in Putin's plans.
Because our governments obtain their legitimacy from the electoral process, people sometimes assume that dictatorships like Russia hold elections to legitimise their own rule, and wonder how people who must know that it is fixed ‘fall’ for such a transparent ruse. But that’s missing the point - the rigged elections are held to demonstrate that those in power are capable of rigging the elections; everyone knows they are rigged but the mere fact that it can be done is a demonstration of power, sending the message that resistance is futile.
It’s the political equivalent of parading all the military hardware through red square.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
On the topic of smart meters, I never had a choice whether to get one installed or not, as a new build property it just came as standard. But for some reason we never had our smart meter display until a few weeks ago, about 8 months after we moved in. Not sure why, whole street were given theirs on the same day (I took in a few for neighbours for those who were out at the time).
Since getting the display noticed a big drop in our electricity consumption. When it turned on it said we were consuming 300w per hour, got that down by about 100w per hour typically.
One thing to be honest was not realising just how much electricity lights use, I was thinking modern lights being energy efficient weren't such a big deal so often had them on unnecessarily - but our living room lights alone are about 60w it seems when on so noticed a drop immediately when they're off on the display.
I suppose each individual light may consume less electricity nowadays but developers seem to have reacted to that by adding more lights as a result, but my living room alone has 8x GU10 lights in the ceiling so cumulatively they add up together to be equivalent to one old fashioned bulb in electricity consumption. 8 GU10 lights is probably overkill for what's only a normal sized new build living room.
A large minority of cyclists in London ignore lights almost completely. They slow down for reds but still sail through
Then there’s the hardcore that whizz down pavements
There's quite a difference between "the vast majority" and "a large minority" though. And I'd say it's a small minority, like maybe 5%. Most weeks I cycle 60km a week and almost all cyclists obey almost every red light on my commute. The big miscreants are food delivery e bikes and couriers, who you can sort of rationalise because they're trying to get their hourly pay rate at least close to the minimum wage.
I’m making three distinctions
The majority jump red lights A large minority ignores red lights - unless in danger of dying A small hardcore essentially obeys no laws at all: cycling on pavements, going the wrong way down one way streets, &c
Central London cyclists are not a great advert for cyclists
Yes I would say that was about right. I would say a majority jump red lights, a large minority always ignores red lights, a small minority ignores red lights even when at risk of dying.
Funnily enough I don't come across/see pavement cycling all that much. You'd have to be an idiot to try to cycle along many London pavements, that said, at least in core central London.
You get a fair amount of pavement cycling in Camden. I’ve learned to be wary of them - because this is how thieves snatch phones: they cycle up on to the pavement from behind you and whisk it out of your hand. Happened to me about six months ago. Infuriating
My better half thought she'd lost her phone today. Checked by phoning it from my phone - didn't seem to be either with me at the office or her at home. Google find my device from her desktop PC located it at the (regular) garage we'd left in the morning. Phoned garage but they couldn't hear it when I called. Drove round to garage and found it under another parked customer's car slightly away from the garage's office. Google "find my device" a bit of a life saver.
I was able, from here in Manhattan, to confirm that my wife had left her handbag - which for reasons contained my UK mobile phone - at Truro Railway Station, which was kind of cool.
Did you get your phone/bag back ?
Yes! Very honest people, the Cornish.
I got my WALLET back six hours after leaving it on a bench at Camden Road station. Entirely untouched, handed in to the station staff by a “regular commuter”. Quite renewed my faith in humanity - and Londoners
I recently lost my wallet, and despite going to the last place the tracker recorded fifteen minutes later, couldn't find it. The next day it popped up a new location a mile away in the shop of my local football club - thanks to a fellow supporter spotting my season ticket. Technology good, Community better!
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
I find it quite hard to fathom how Russian authoritarianism works. We generally assume that Putin can merely decide the result, noting the actual figures privately as useful info. If so, why would he care about the election? It's like the supposedly solid censorship, which periodically lets a liberal or a right-wing nutter say something "unhelpful" without consequences, while people can get arrested for trivia. Others here may know more, but my impression is that it has elements of half-functioning freedom which Putin can suspend at will but would probably be unwise to suspend too widely at once.
But I still think it's unlikely that the election is a major factor in Putin's plans.
Because our governments obtain their legitimacy from the electoral process, people sometimes assume that dictatorships like Russia hold elections to legitimise their own rule, and wonder how people who must know that it is fixed ‘fall’ for such a transparent ruse. But that’s missing the point - the rigged elections are held to demonstrate that those in power are capable of rigging the elections; everyone knows they are rigged but the mere fact that it can be done is a demonstration of power, sending the message that resistance is futile.
It’s the political equivalent of parading all the military hardware through red square.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
India’s belligerence towards Canada is probably the biggest geopolitical red flag at the moment.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
If these brutal and brutalized Russians had not raped children before murdering their parents. If they had not tortured prisoners, including castration, before inflicting brutal murder. If they had not burned entire cities to the ground. If they had not started an invasion of a peaceful and mostly previously friendly neighbour, then perhaps I could share your concern about dehumanizing language.
Except I can´t. I think the crimes of Russia cry out for justice. Calling them Orcs is more or less descriptive.
Arrived in Manchester on another of my £1 each way rail trips. Just got on a free Burnham bus route 1 heading for the science museum. City vs Chelsea U21s later. Total cost of day out £3 if I can work out which bus to get on or £7 if I have to indulge myself in 2 Metro singles
Regarding cash vs electronic. I believe "try using your phone if systems go down" was the retort.
OK, so I go into a shop. Power cut. They aren't taking cash payments either because their tills aren't working. BTW phone payment is not reliant on an internet connection anyway.
Yes, and this point has now been made to the PB Cash Fetishists many times, yet still they persist in this nonsense.
Moreover, I asked how they withdraw cash when 'electronic systems go down'. Answer, there came none.
The wise reactionary keeps a supply of cowrie shells in their tweed bags for these situations.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
Arrived in Manchester on another of my £1 each way rail trips. Just got on a free Burnham bus route 1 heading for the science museum. City vs Chelsea U21s later. Total cost of day out £3 if I can work out which bus to get on or £7 if I have to indulge myself in 2 Metro singles
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
I can recommend Epson Ecotank, especially if you do lots of everyday printing - e.g. book drafts.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
A large minority of cyclists in London ignore lights almost completely. They slow down for reds but still sail through
Then there’s the hardcore that whizz down pavements
There's quite a difference between "the vast majority" and "a large minority" though. And I'd say it's a small minority, like maybe 5%. Most weeks I cycle 60km a week and almost all cyclists obey almost every red light on my commute. The big miscreants are food delivery e bikes and couriers, who you can sort of rationalise because they're trying to get their hourly pay rate at least close to the minimum wage.
I’m making three distinctions
The majority jump red lights A large minority ignores red lights - unless in danger of dying A small hardcore essentially obeys no laws at all: cycling on pavements, going the wrong way down one way streets, &c
Central London cyclists are not a great advert for cyclists
Yes I would say that was about right. I would say a majority jump red lights, a large minority always ignores red lights, a small minority ignores red lights even when at risk of dying.
Funnily enough I don't come across/see pavement cycling all that much. You'd have to be an idiot to try to cycle along many London pavements, that said, at least in core central London.
They also shout and do wanker signs at pedestrians and motorists if they do anything they consider remotely off. Cyclists in London are - perhaps as an evolutionary defence mechanism - wired up XL-Bully style and ready for a fight at all times. The middle aged male ones anyway. The youths are more placid, though defiantly dismissive of the ban on pavement cycling.
Contrast with Denmark where I've several times stepped out into a cycle lane not realising it was one, almost caused an accident and got nothing worse than a chirpy bell ring from a suit wearing commuter sitting upright on their basketed bike.
I think every PBer should cycle through a British town during rush hour.
I'll buy them a pint if they don't swear/die/lose a leg/assault a driver/buy a GoPro.
The aggro cyclist stereotype stems from the constant danger and adrenaline, and the fact your mate got knocked off a couple of weeks ago.
Like that Edinburgh demo we discussed, where I was nearly killed by a bunch of cyclists who were doing a demo to campaign for road safety, and who went straight through a red when I was in the middle and the green man was on? Someone owes me a gallon of beer for that, and another for still remaining at least theoretically positive about cycling in the public transport realm.
I’ve got shouted at, on a bike, by other cyclists, for stopping to let people cross to the “bus islands” that are the fashion in West London.
They are marked with white stripes, pelican crossing style, but with no lights. No one seems to know who should give way. The stripes mean that many pedestrians think they are safe to step out into the cycle lane.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
Is life better without having to constantly remember to brush your teeth?
Just make it a part of your routine and you never have to remember again.
I put my phone down on its dock on my bedside table, or desk, or car and it charges itself. I never need to remember to charge it as it all happens automatically.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
This is exactly what Russian media says their tactics are. XAXA!
A large minority of cyclists in London ignore lights almost completely. They slow down for reds but still sail through
Then there’s the hardcore that whizz down pavements
There's quite a difference between "the vast majority" and "a large minority" though. And I'd say it's a small minority, like maybe 5%. Most weeks I cycle 60km a week and almost all cyclists obey almost every red light on my commute. The big miscreants are food delivery e bikes and couriers, who you can sort of rationalise because they're trying to get their hourly pay rate at least close to the minimum wage.
I’m making three distinctions.
The majority jump red lights A large minority ignores red lights - unless in danger of dying A small hardcore essentially obeys no laws at all: cycling on pavements, going the wrong way down one way streets, &c
Central London cyclists are not a great advert for cyclists
Going the wrong way down a one way street on bike is extremely sensible albeit it still illegal in the UK. In France it is the law on roads with under 30 kph limits. It is an amazingly good idea. Everyone sees everyone. There is no overtaking of bikes, or cars in traffic jams which is the risky bit. There is normally a greater gap between car and bike. And it takes the bikes away from busier roads. Works a treat in Paris. Now the Place de la Concorde on the other hand!!! I get off my bike there
In the UK the council can make roads "one way, except for bikes" if they want to -- the road I live on is set up like that, as are most of the "one way because narrow victorian terraced streets" roads nearby.
The UK has provision (going back at least 25 years) for contraflow cycle lanes that are either mandatory (= offence for motor vehicles to enter where enforcible) or advisory (dotted lines = more collisions) or that are not there at all (reserved for low traffic low speed situations), and appropriate road signs for several options. Plus we have "except cycles" exemption plates below NO ENTRY signs, sometimes - which is really a form of modal filtering (don't tell Howard Cox or Mark Harper).
Using signs seems to be the normal approach in European countries with fewer sign options, except at least AIUI Belgium where two-way cycling allowed on one way roads is default. May be other exceptions for 30kph streets as France mentioned above, but I can't find easy information.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
Is life better without having to constantly remember to brush your teeth?
Just make it a part of your routine and you never have to remember again.
I put my phone down on its dock on my bedside table, or desk, or car and it charges itself. I never need to remember to charge it as it all happens automatically.
It's amazing, isn't it? I sometimes wonder how PBers even get out of the door of a morning, the poor lambs.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
Back up in your ass with the resurrection It's the group harder than an erection That shows no affection They wanna ban us on Capitol Hill 'Cause it's "Die muthafuckas, die muthafuckas!" still
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
I find it quite hard to fathom how Russian authoritarianism works. We generally assume that Putin can merely decide the result, noting the actual figures privately as useful info. If so, why would he care about the election? It's like the supposedly solid censorship, which periodically lets a liberal or a right-wing nutter say something "unhelpful" without consequences, while people can get arrested for trivia. Others here may know more, but my impression is that it has elements of half-functioning freedom which Putin can suspend at will but would probably be unwise to suspend too widely at once.
But I still think it's unlikely that the election is a major factor in Putin's plans.
I think authoritarian regimes generally involve more negotiation with the populace than one might first assume. All dictators are scared of being overthrown, so there is a degree of responding to public concern and ways in which public feeling becomes apparent. You can see this in China, where the CCP is very concerned with what people think and do, within certain parameters, react to that, e.g. acting against local officials whose behaviour goes too far.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
I can recommend Epson Ecotank, especially if you do lots of everyday printing - e.g. book drafts.
Got one myself, the 8550 so I can print out on A3 as well (though it can't scan A3, just a4) - brilliant for proofreading as I can see very clearly things like straight and curved quotation marks. Vastly cheaper than cartridges, but more expensive up front - however already paid for itself within a year as I am a heavy user.
Edit: For Leon's info, this is an ink tank machine. Bottles to top[ up, no cartridges. Tho I believe Canon do similar.
More ships have now agreed to use Ukraine's Black Sea corridor. Russia's impotence is becoming plain to see. One of the ships will be taking its cargo to China.
I went to the wedding reception of one of the most famous people on earth, and sadly it was a vegan affair.
Totally bland and depressing.
the champagne was good though.
I once went to a Rothschild wedding. Not any old Rothschilds, either. Main branch...
A PB pedant writes "The main branch is descended from the eldest child (son?). The cadet branch is descended from younger children. This is important in cases where the first-born inherits."
I was using it in the looser sense of “fuck me, look how loaded THEY are”
Which, to be fair, is how the Rothschilds themselves use it. The main branch is much envied by the poorer cousins who are merely worth a few million
Hence the phenomenon in places like the Old South in the US of the dirt poor farmer who was cousin to the owners of the big mansion down the road.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
Which apparently refers to a computer and nothing to do with any of PBs Deputy Editors!!
Baby was a massive thing (in every way), as it was perhaps a computing first. If you go to the MSI in Manchester, you can see a replica. If there's any of the volunteers about it, they'll chat to you for hours about computers.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
Wearing a helmet should be made compulsory when cycling.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
Glad to be an atheist then.
Perhaps you should be more concerned with the evil actions of the orcs, and less concerned with the very apt description of their behaviour?
Arrived in Manchester on another of my £1 each way rail trips. Just got on a free Burnham bus route 1 heading for the science museum. City vs Chelsea U21s later. Total cost of day out £3 if I can work out which bus to get on or £7 if I have to indulge myself in 2 Metro singles
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
Glad to be an atheist then.
Perhaps you should be more concerned with the evil actions of the orcs, and less concerned with the very apt description of their behaviour?
I'm with LuckyGiy on this - referring to Russian soldiers in Ukraine as 'orcs' is demeaning and belittling.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
I have a phone, I just choose not to use it as a payment device.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
Agreed. So, what’s on your list of successful wars of conquest?
Israel in 1948 and 1967 Turkey into northern Cyprus Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia Armenia/Azerbaijan Morocco into Western Sahara India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories Chinese invasion of Tibet ?
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
Wearing a helmet should be made compulsory when cycling.
Especially for children, to send kids on a bike without protective gear is tantamount to neglect.
My kids absolutely love their bikes and their rollerskates but they know better than to ever go on either without their helmet, so they don't. Its just routine for them, put the helmet on, then get on their bike/get their skates on.
For adults there's liberal arguments that people should be free to choose, though that doesn't apply in law to seat belts. There's no rational reason why it should be mandatory to wear a seat belt, inside a vehicle that provides some protection already and has airbags etc too - but completely optional to wear a helmet when completely exposed to the elements and the ground if you fall or have an accident.
Arrived in Manchester on another of my £1 each way rail trips. Just got on a free Burnham bus route 1 heading for the science museum. City vs Chelsea U21s later. Total cost of day out £3 if I can work out which bus to get on or £7 if I have to indulge myself in 2 Metro singles
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
My suggestion that we would see changes in yesterday's by-elections proved to be pretty spot on. The Con gain in Ayrshire, the LD gains in Milton Keynes and Colchester were expected. Lab did hold its seat in Hull but there was a large swing to the Lib Dems.
The Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock seat is a possible Tory gain at the next election.
As the probability of a big Labour majority grows stronger, the temptation for anti-SNP tactical voting will diminish.
Which apparently refers to a computer and nothing to do with any of PBs Deputy Editors!!
Baby was a massive thing (in every way), as it was perhaps a computing first. If you go to the MSI in Manchester, you can see a replica. If there's any of the volunteers about it, they'll chat to you for hours about computers.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
Restrictions to put seatbelts on doesn't prevent people from driving. Get people in the habit of wearing helmets and it just becomes the norm, not a restriction.
As for those claimed studies have not been substantiated. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents disputes that claimed study and says its been disproven, though the link they cite in their citations seems to be dead.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins31 . While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion32 . https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/cycle-helmets-factsheet.pdf
I'm going to buy a Canon printer at Argos, then install it and connect it to the wifi IN FRONT OF THE HEWLETT PACKARD PRINTER. Hahahahaha. I'm going to CUCKOLD the old HP printer, and force it to watch
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
I have a phone, I just choose not to use it as a payment device.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
Rachel Reeves has made some suggestions at changing the OBR, which George Osborn has now welcomed.
Part of a broader statement on fiscal rules which looks very promising from Labour.
I read this and thought, "Oh, sensible, the OBR desperately needs change - they're fucking useless" - only to Google and find she's actually suggesting handing them MORE power. This is a good idea how, when they can't forecast for shit?
I went to the wedding reception of one of the most famous people on earth, and sadly it was a vegan affair.
Totally bland and depressing.
the champagne was good though.
I once went to a Rothschild wedding. Not any old Rothschilds, either. Main branch
The food was good but the wine - as you might imagine - was SUPERB. £500 bottles of red on every table, and endless replacements when you drained the last (which happened frequently)
What does "main branch" mean? How do I tell whether it is I or my cousin who is on the "main branch" of our* family?
*we aren't Rothschilds. I expect I wouldn't have had to ask if we were.
The main branch is the really really really rich branch
The person who got married is personally worth north of $1bn
Tho of course there are Rothschilds even richer than that
To add to the occasional posts of 'where is this?', may I submit the following:
Yes, there is a link...
Hmm, solved with a three word Google search - must try harder!
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
I find it quite hard to fathom how Russian authoritarianism works. We generally assume that Putin can merely decide the result, noting the actual figures privately as useful info. If so, why would he care about the election?...
I read a book[1] a year or two ago that gave the answer. Holding a rigged election has several advantages to the dictator: they give a spurious legitimacy, enables the electors to feel proud of their country, do not trigger various sanctions under international law, and draw out the opposition whilst engendering despair within it. The appearance of democracy is important.
[1] It was either "How to Rig an Election" (Brian Klaas with Nick Cheeseman, 2018) or "Twilight of Democracy" (subtitles vary) (Anne Applebaum, 2021), or both. Libraries are great.
Just discovered this while pottering round elsewhere
Word processing has allowed people to make things needless complex because previously it was painful to have to get things typed up and printed so that limited people doing it.
A large minority of cyclists in London ignore lights almost completely. They slow down for reds but still sail through
Then there’s the hardcore that whizz down pavements
There's quite a difference between "the vast majority" and "a large minority" though. And I'd say it's a small minority, like maybe 5%. Most weeks I cycle 60km a week and almost all cyclists obey almost every red light on my commute. The big miscreants are food delivery e bikes and couriers, who you can sort of rationalise because they're trying to get their hourly pay rate at least close to the minimum wage.
I’m making three distinctions
The majority jump red lights A large minority ignores red lights - unless in danger of dying A small hardcore essentially obeys no laws at all: cycling on pavements, going the wrong way down one way streets, &c
Central London cyclists are not a great advert for cyclists
Yes I would say that was about right. I would say a majority jump red lights, a large minority always ignores red lights, a small minority ignores red lights even when at risk of dying.
Funnily enough I don't come across/see pavement cycling all that much. You'd have to be an idiot to try to cycle along many London pavements, that said, at least in core central London.
They also shout and do wanker signs at pedestrians and motorists if they do anything they consider remotely off. Cyclists in London are - perhaps as an evolutionary defence mechanism - wired up XL-Bully style and ready for a fight at all times. The middle aged male ones anyway. The youths are more placid, though defiantly dismissive of the ban on pavement cycling.
Contrast with Denmark where I've several times stepped out into a cycle lane not realising it was one, almost caused an accident and got nothing worse than a chirpy bell ring from a suit wearing commuter sitting upright on their basketed bike.
I think every PBer should cycle through a British town during rush hour.
I'll buy them a pint if they don't swear/die/lose a leg/assault a driver/buy a GoPro.
The aggro cyclist stereotype stems from the constant danger and adrenaline, and the fact your mate got knocked off a couple of weeks ago.
Like that Edinburgh demo we discussed, where I was nearly killed by a bunch of cyclists who were doing a demo to campaign for road safety, and who went straight through a red when I was in the middle and the green man was on? Someone owes me a gallon of beer for that, and another for still remaining at least theoretically positive about cycling in the public transport realm.
I’ve got shouted at, on a bike, for stopping to let people cross
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
The latter is already in the post. You think South Korea and Taiwan aren't busily nuking up, as we speak? They won't announce it, they may not build an actual bomb, but they will have all the ingredients on the table ready to assemble in minutes
Saudi, too - they have basically admitted it
Of course. But if those, one, perhaps two probably have no intention of going all the way, for now at least. And there'll be a load of others who will copy them should Russia prevail.
Japan has maintained this kind of deterrent for decades. They have multiple tons of plutonium, and a three stage solid rocket orbital launcher that has a striking resemblance to the American MX missile.
The only question is whether they have lab tested an implosion mechanism. If they have, , and manufactured such mechanisms, they could be hours from making a bomb. If not, a crash program of weeks.
Regarding cash vs electronic. I believe "try using your phone if systems go down" was the retort.
OK, so I go into a shop. Power cut. They aren't taking cash payments either because their tills aren't working. BTW phone payment is not reliant on an internet connection anyway.
Are you sure about that last point? My local Co-Op has lost Internet several times fur to scrotes nicking cables, and they can take cash perfectly well - but not card or phone.
Internet? You don't need an active internet continuous internet connection for contactless payments. How do you think they work on trains and planes?
Anyway, we are talking about very occasional scenarios. For the vast majority of the time contactless works flawlessly. Indeed, I can tap for any amount, whereas with the physical card I cannot.
Well, I might suggest you ask my local Co-Op why, when the scrotes nick the cables, they become cash only. I'm sure they're only doing it because they want to lose business.
Perhaps they need to log on to here to find out the error of their ways.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
All Printers Are Bastards.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended. (Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
Restrictions to put seatbelts on doesn't prevent people from driving. Get people in the habit of wearing helmets and it just becomes the norm, not a restriction.
As for those claimed studies have not been substantiated. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents disputes that claimed study and says its been disproven, though the link they cite in their citations seems to be dead.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins31 . While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion32 . https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/cycle-helmets-factsheet.pdf
When I was a kid in the 70s & 80s, everyone I knew spent hours and hours a week on their bike. When do you ever see a group of kids out on their bikes now? I have no idea whether helmets are to blame or the desire of kids to sit in their bedrooms and play video games all evening. Whatever, kids are poorer for not cycling like they did 30 years ago.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
Agreed. So, what’s on your list of successful wars of conquest?
Israel in 1948 and 1967 Turkey into northern Cyprus Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia Armenia/Azerbaijan Morocco into Western Sahara India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories Chinese invasion of Tibet ?
I think that's about it. I was going to add East Timor, but remembered that Indonesia ultimately lost.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
If these brutal and brutalized Russians had not raped children before murdering their parents. If they had not tortured prisoners, including castration, before inflicting brutal murder. If they had not burned entire cities to the ground. If they had not started an invasion of a peaceful and mostly previously friendly neighbour, then perhaps I could share your concern about dehumanizing language.
Except I can´t. I think the crimes of Russia cry out for justice. Calling them Orcs is more or less descriptive.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
I have a phone, I just choose not to use it as a payment device.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
Restrictions to put seatbelts on doesn't prevent people from driving. Get people in the habit of wearing helmets and it just becomes the norm, not a restriction.
As for those claimed studies have not been substantiated. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents disputes that claimed study and says its been disproven, though the link they cite in their citations seems to be dead.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins31 . While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any support for this notion32 . https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/cycle-helmets-factsheet.pdf
When I was a kid in the 70s & 80s, everyone I knew spent hours and hours a week on their bike. When do you ever see a group of kids out on their bikes now? I have no idea whether helmets are to blame or the desire of kids to sit in their bedrooms and play video games all evening. Whatever, kids are poorer for not cycling like they did 30 years ago.
When younger, I used to occasionally ride a giraffe unicycle and I didn't bother with a helmet. However, I am now older and have lost the reckless abandon of youth!
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
I have a phone, I just choose not to use it as a payment device.
Why?
I don't wish there to be any link between a phone and my financial information, nor do I wish any software on my phone to be acting as a payment processor.
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
Agreed. So, what’s on your list of successful wars of conquest?
Israel in 1948 and 1967 Turkey into northern Cyprus Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia Armenia/Azerbaijan Morocco into Western Sahara India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories Chinese invasion of Tibet ?
I think that's about it. I was going to add East Timor, but remembered that Indonesia ultimately lost.
Half of those wars haven't really been successful however - they've just resulted in a massive zombie territory. They've been disastrous for the invadees but not really a triumph for the invaders. The ones in India are a good example though - no-one really questions Goa's Indian-ness.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
All Printers Are Bastards.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended. (Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
For a while that was the only way I could get my printer to work - by sending instructions from my phone
Now, after I've just installed an exciting new range of official HP ink cartridges which barely fit and make no sense, it has decided to go on permanent strike, after a lifetime of dicking me about
It sits there in the corner, smugly dysfunctional. It has NO IDEA what I am about to do to it. Wanker
I'm going to buy a Canon printer at Argos, then install it and connect it to the wifi IN FRONT OF THE HEWLETT PACKARD PRINTER. Hahahahaha. I'm going to CUCKOLD the old HP printer, and force it to watch
Surely for proper cuckolding, you need to insert something, like the new printer's USB lead into what the old printer viewed as it's computer? What you suggest is nothing more than some light on the side sexting
Or, better still, just go all Office Space on the old printer
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
All Printers Are Bastards.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended. (Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
For a while that was the only way I could get my printer to work - by sending instructions from my phone
Now, after I've just installed an exciting new range of official HP ink cartridges which barely fit and make no sense, it has decided to go on permanent strike, after a lifetime of dicking me about
It sits there in the corner, smugly dysfunctional. It has NO IDEA what I am about to do to it. Wanker
I swear my Epson printer says "Help me! Help me!" whenever it prints!
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
Agreed. So, what’s on your list of successful wars of conquest?
Israel in 1948 and 1967 Turkey into northern Cyprus Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia Armenia/Azerbaijan Morocco into Western Sahara India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories Chinese invasion of Tibet ?
I think that's about it. I was going to add East Timor, but remembered that Indonesia ultimately lost.
Pakistan and India effectively dividing Kashmir in 1947?
Oyster mushrooms eat nematodes. (I'll leave to others the question of whether a person eating an oyster mushroom is therefore a carnivore, once removed.)
Since I learned that, I have been looking for those mushrooms, in order to fight back on behalf of the animal kingdom.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
Well if I was going out for a ride which involved descending the Pennines at 30mph, I'd wear a helmet. If, however, I am pootling the 1km to the leisure centre at an unhurried 10mph or so, perhaps not. And the majority of the cycling, and the vast majority of the potential cycling which doesn't cycle at the moment, falls into the second category.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
Yup- on many UK streets, helmets are wise; I wear one when I'm going down the shops and my children are pretty well-trained from that point of view. But not because they're the best way of improving safety, but they're the only one I can control.
And some places have entered the doom loop where streets are seen as too dangerous for people to use, so children have to be driven everywhere, so the streets are busier and more dangerous... With the side effect that @NerysHughes points out.
(Similarly, people having big cars because it makes them safer, even if it increases the risk for everyone else.)
Useful servants they may be, but cars are lousy masters. A bit like Dominic Cummings or Alistair Campbell.
Cash? I drove to Glasgow and back yesterday for a business meeting. Forgot my wallet. Happily navigated around, paid for items, even got signed into Costco just using my phone.
Liberating...
Try using your wallet as a satnav when you forget your phone!
Try using your phone as anything when it runs out of battery!
This is, largely, a cultural argument between neophiles and luddites. I am absolutely fine for the Neophiles to use their phone for everything, but for me technology was absolutely fine in 2005 and almost nothing (for the end user like me) has come along since which offers significant enough advantages for me to put in the minimal effort of learning how to use it.
Satnavs are a perfect example. As a culture, we managed perfectly well without them before 2005; now people are dependent on them.
As discussed many times previously, get a smartwatch – it operates independently of your phone, which you always need anyway. So one backs up the other.
Do it. Life is better without lugging around stupid pieces of paper.
life is better without having to constantly remembering to charge stupid electronic devices
You need a phone, you cannot live modern life without one. So suck it up.
I have a phone, I just choose not to use it as a payment device.
Why?
I don't wish there to be any link between a phone and my financial information, nor do I wish any software on my phone to be acting as a payment processor.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
Wearing a helmet should be made compulsory when cycling.
Especially for children, to send kids on a bike without protective gear is tantamount to neglect.
My kids absolutely love their bikes and their rollerskates but they know better than to ever go on either without their helmet, so they don't. Its just routine for them, put the helmet on, then get on their bike/get their skates on.
For adults there's liberal arguments that people should be free to choose, though that doesn't apply in law to seat belts. There's no rational reason why it should be mandatory to wear a seat belt, inside a vehicle that provides some protection already and has airbags etc too - but completely optional to wear a helmet when completely exposed to the elements and the ground if you fall or have an accident.
In the rear of cars (possibly also in the front in a side-collision) seat belts are also protecting other occupants.
Re helmets, they help in some situations (my wife, as a kid, came off when racing her brother down a hill - I've seen a photo of the helmet and it no doubt helped her) but not in others, obviously depending on the impact site. As with many things bike, there's the problem that at the cheap end they're a bit shit and annoying and at the decent end a bit expensive for the occasional user. For example, my helmet, a Giro, cost somewhere around £70, I think, but is so comfortable that I can forget I'm wearing it. Easy to justify on a commute - it's far less than filling up the car once - but harder for an occasional user.
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
I can recommend Epson Ecotank, especially if you do lots of everyday printing - e.g. book drafts.
For everyday printing, use a laser printer, not a crappy inkjet.
I went to the wedding reception of one of the most famous people on earth, and sadly it was a vegan affair.
Totally bland and depressing.
the champagne was good though.
I once went to a Rothschild wedding. Not any old Rothschilds, either. Main branch
The food was good but the wine - as you might imagine - was SUPERB. £500 bottles of red on every table, and endless replacements when you drained the last (which happened frequently)
What does "main branch" mean? How do I tell whether it is I or my cousin who is on the "main branch" of our* family?
*we aren't Rothschilds. I expect I wouldn't have had to ask if we were.
The main branch is the really really really rich branch
The person who got married is personally worth north of $1bn
Tho of course there are Rothschilds even richer than that
To add to the occasional posts of 'where is this?', may I submit the following:
Yes, there is a link...
Hmm, solved with a three word Google search - must try harder!
I thought Google searching was banned in this game...
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
West will be well and truly F***ed if they do not ensure Ukraine "win". Otherwise Russia and China will know they can do what they want anywhere.
Not just Russia and China. The impression that seizing territory by force is now a winning gambit, if it were to prevail, is quite a dangerous one everywhere.
It will also encourage a wave of nuclear proliferation.
There have actually been few successful wars of conquest since 1945. We don't want this to be one of them.
Agreed. So, what’s on your list of successful wars of conquest?
Israel in 1948 and 1967 Turkey into northern Cyprus Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia Armenia/Azerbaijan Morocco into Western Sahara India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories Chinese invasion of Tibet ?
I think that's about it. I was going to add East Timor, but remembered that Indonesia ultimately lost.
Pakistan and India effectively dividing Kashmir in 1947?
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
Yup- on many UK streets, helmets are wise; I wear one when I'm going down the shops and my children are pretty well-trained from that point of view. But not because they're the best way of improving safety, but they're the only one I can control.
And some places have entered the doom loop where streets are seen as too dangerous for people to use, so children have to be driven everywhere, so the streets are busier and more dangerous... With the side effect that @NerysHughes points out.
(Similarly, people having big cars because it makes them safer, even if it increases the risk for everyone else.)
Useful servants they may be, but cars are lousy masters. A bit like Dominic Cummings or Alistair Campbell.
I think helmets, high vis, 1000 lumen lights also contribute to that doom loop.
The cyclists people see on the road look like they are going into war. Hardly the positive, carefree, relaxed vibe you get in Europe, where cycling is normal.
After a number of pedestrians were killed by drivers in Glasgow, Police Scotland advised people to wear high vis while they were just walking round the city. Victim blaming arseholes.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
Yup- on many UK streets, helmets are wise; I wear one when I'm going down the shops and my children are pretty well-trained from that point of view. But not because they're the best way of improving safety, but they're the only one I can control.
And some places have entered the doom loop where streets are seen as too dangerous for people to use, so children have to be driven everywhere, so the streets are busier and more dangerous... With the side effect that @NerysHughes points out.
(Similarly, people having big cars because it makes them safer, even if it increases the risk for everyone else.)
Useful servants they may be, but cars are lousy masters. A bit like Dominic Cummings or Alistair Campbell.
I think helmets, high vis, 1000 lumen lights also contribute to that doom loop.
The cyclists people see on the road look like they are going into war. Hardly the positive, carefree, relaxed vibe you get in Europe, where cycling is normal.
After a number of pedestrians were killed by drivers in Glasgow, Police Scotland advised people to wear high vis while they were just walking round the city. Victim blaming arseholes.
Agreed. The "dressed for combat" look is counterproductive. I wear a big straw hat, and carry flowers in my front basket.
Then, when I pull out the hammer and break the wing mirror of the white van at the lights, they are always surprised.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
But as Cookie points out, if the requirement to wear a helmet puts people off cycling, you could end up losing more lives (through lack of exercise, etc.) than you save. Not everyone is going for it on the curves. I usually wear a helmet, but will sometimes not bother if just riding gently in the park or suchlike. I think recommend but not mandate is the best approach.
That's one heck of a big conditional. And it's not just about saving lives: it's about preventing head injuries that may not kill.
A large minority of cyclists in London ignore lights almost completely. They slow down for reds but still sail through
Then there’s the hardcore that whizz down pavements
There's quite a difference between "the vast majority" and "a large minority" though. And I'd say it's a small minority, like maybe 5%. Most weeks I cycle 60km a week and almost all cyclists obey almost every red light on my commute. The big miscreants are food delivery e bikes and couriers, who you can sort of rationalise because they're trying to get their hourly pay rate at least close to the minimum wage.
I’m making three distinctions
The majority jump red lights A large minority ignores red lights - unless in danger of dying A small hardcore essentially obeys no laws at all: cycling on pavements, going the wrong way down one way streets, &c
Central London cyclists are not a great advert for cyclists
Yes I would say that was about right. I would say a majority jump red lights, a large minority always ignores red lights, a small minority ignores red lights even when at risk of dying.
Funnily enough I don't come across/see pavement cycling all that much. You'd have to be an idiot to try to cycle along many London pavements, that said, at least in core central London.
You get a fair amount of pavement cycling in Camden. I’ve learned to be wary of them - because this is how thieves snatch phones: they cycle up on to the pavement from behind you and whisk it out of your hand. Happened to me about six months ago. Infuriating
My better half thought she'd lost her phone today. Checked by phoning it from my phone - didn't seem to be either with me at the office or her at home. Google find my device from her desktop PC located it at the (regular) garage we'd left in the morning. Phoned garage but they couldn't hear it when I called. Drove round to garage and found it under another parked customer's car slightly away from the garage's office. Google "find my device" a bit of a life saver.
I was able, from here in Manhattan, to confirm that my wife had left her handbag - which for reasons contained my UK mobile phone - at Truro Railway Station, which was kind of cool.
Did you get your phone/bag back ?
Yes! Very honest people, the Cornish.
I got my WALLET back six hours after leaving it on a bench at Camden Road station. Entirely untouched, handed in to the station staff by a “regular commuter”. Quite renewed my faith in humanity - and Londoners
I left my wallet on a BUS at King’s Cross. It was handed into the driver, who finished his round and called me from the depot at the number listed on one of my business cards.
I swear this would not happen in Paris.
Three months after having that wallet returned IN LONDON, FROM A BUSY STATION I lost it again, this time in the Al fresco cafe of a medieval castle in provincial Ukraine - Kamanets Podolskiy
This time it was not returned. Stolen
Slightly jaundiced my view of the war, for a while
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
Well if I was going out for a ride which involved descending the Pennines at 30mph, I'd wear a helmet. If, however, I am pootling the 1km to the leisure centre at an unhurried 10mph or so, perhaps not. And the majority of the cycling, and the vast majority of the potential cycling which doesn't cycle at the moment, falls into the second category.
You can easily cause yourself a head injury - even a serious one -cycling at 10MPH.
Would you wear a seatbelt in your car when 'pootling along' at 10 MPH?
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
When else are they supposed to run out of ink, or go wrong?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
But it's like getting in your car and finding out that 50% of the time it won't start, or has no petrol, or needs to be reconnected to your fucking microwave or something
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
I can recommend Epson Ecotank, especially if you do lots of everyday printing - e.g. book drafts.
For everyday printing, use a laser printer, not a crappy inkjet.
I went to the wedding reception of one of the most famous people on earth, and sadly it was a vegan affair.
Totally bland and depressing.
the champagne was good though.
I once went to a Rothschild wedding. Not any old Rothschilds, either. Main branch
The food was good but the wine - as you might imagine - was SUPERB. £500 bottles of red on every table, and endless replacements when you drained the last (which happened frequently)
What does "main branch" mean? How do I tell whether it is I or my cousin who is on the "main branch" of our* family?
*we aren't Rothschilds. I expect I wouldn't have had to ask if we were.
The main branch is the really really really rich branch
The person who got married is personally worth north of $1bn
Tho of course there are Rothschilds even richer than that
To add to the occasional posts of 'where is this?', may I submit the following:
Yes, there is a link...
Hmm, solved with a three word Google search - must try harder!
I thought Google searching was banned in this game...
In a world full of evils, I can say - without hyperbole - that there is nothing I despise more than my Hewlett Packard printer
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
Do you not have a plan with HP. I pay them 99p a month and they monitor my ink levels and when it gets to a certain level they send me new ones. I don't print a lot but a great service and hassle free.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
Ukraine. Do I get a sense that the world's view is shifting? Wars used to have a beginning, a middle and an end. Winners and losers, and followed by a moral determination to make the world better and safer. Obvs what I have just said is mostly false but not entirely.
In recent decades wars have done nothing like this. They have interminable middles, no proper end and the outcome is always worse than before. (Iraq, Syria, various bits of Africa, Afghanistan etc).
Is Ukraine, in our minds, entering the phase of being just another of these? If so, the west is going to start losing its grip.
Neither side can inflict an overwhelming defeat or even put together a major offensive that goes anywhere yet neither side is ready to sue for a white peace. So we'll see what happens in Season 3. Poland look like they are getting written out so Romania might have to step up to series regular.
Allegedly the current tactic is pinprick raids by Ukraine to draw the Orcs out, then kill them, and continue until morale collapses or they run out of people. It's based on the presumption that for political reasons (2024 Russian Prez Elex) no reinforcements will be sent until after the election (March) or inauguration (May)
Calling any human being an 'orc', regardless of wicked deeds that they may have done, is the least Jesus-like phrase I could imagine anyone using.
Glad to be an atheist then.
Perhaps you should be more concerned with the evil actions of the orcs, and less concerned with the very apt description of their behaviour?
You may be an atheist, but I believe Viewcode professes to being a Christian.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Makes me feel sick seeing kids cycling without a helmet. Adults are bad enough, kids doing so is even worse.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
I disagree (about adults, at least). Go to the Netherlands or Denmark - no-one is wearing helmets. Cycling ought to be as easy as walking - the more restrictions you put in place, the fewer people will do it. And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
That's rubbish IMV. A couple of years back I came off my bike when my ambition was greater than my adhesion. No other vehicle was involved. I have known other people who have had totally unforced solo accidents on their bikes during everyday use.
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
Well if I was going out for a ride which involved descending the Pennines at 30mph, I'd wear a helmet. If, however, I am pootling the 1km to the leisure centre at an unhurried 10mph or so, perhaps not. And the majority of the cycling, and the vast majority of the potential cycling which doesn't cycle at the moment, falls into the second category.
You can easily cause yourself a head injury - even a serious one -cycling at 10MPH.
Would you wear a seatbelt in your car when 'pootling along' at 10 MPH?
Do you wear a helmet when running?
A fair number of parkrunners manage a 10mph pace. Is that what you would recommend for them? It's absurd.
Aside from the drivers, cycling isn't so dangerous that it requires a helmet. I never wore a helmet when skiing. I even broke my leg skiing, but it never occurred to me to wear a helmet. I only wear a helmet cycling because of having to mix it with dangerous car traffic.
Comments
Funny old world.
They really should have made it clearer it only applies to English people.
https://twitter.com/leighsus/status/1705206588611731567
https://twitter.com/SDNYnews/status/1705210541717807243
It’s the political equivalent of parading all the military hardware through red square.
"Confessions of a Russell Brand superfan
My obsession hasn't been entirely straightforward
BY PANDA LA TERRIERE"
https://unherd.com/2023/09/confessions-of-a-russell-brand-superfan/
Since getting the display noticed a big drop in our electricity consumption. When it turned on it said we were consuming 300w per hour, got that down by about 100w per hour typically.
One thing to be honest was not realising just how much electricity lights use, I was thinking modern lights being energy efficient weren't such a big deal so often had them on unnecessarily - but our living room lights alone are about 60w it seems when on so noticed a drop immediately when they're off on the display.
I suppose each individual light may consume less electricity nowadays but developers seem to have reacted to that by adding more lights as a result, but my living room alone has 8x GU10 lights in the ceiling so cumulatively they add up together to be equivalent to one old fashioned bulb in electricity consumption. 8 GU10 lights is probably overkill for what's only a normal sized new build living room.
What is it with printers? Why do they ALWAYS go wrong, or run out of ink, at the most awkward moments - ie, when you need to print?
Its like asking why your keys are always in the last place you look.
Except I can´t. I think the crimes of Russia cry out for justice. Calling them Orcs is more or less descriptive.
And and several tin openers.
Just PHENOMENALLY unreliable
Anyway I've had enough. I'm off to Argos to buy a replacement - Canon. HP can go fuck themselves, with their "instant ink programme"
I might actually smash the old one out of sheer revenge, teach HP a lesson, then stamp on the bits and laugh
How have we ended up with these guys outside politics? Both seriously bright, insightful individuals.
They are marked with white stripes, pelican crossing style, but with no lights. No one seems to know who should give way. The stripes mean that many pedestrians think they are safe to step out into the cycle lane.
Sooner or later, Lens will remember what winning is. Hopefully it won't be this weekend.
Just make it a part of your routine and you never have to remember again.
I put my phone down on its dock on my bedside table, or desk, or car and it charges itself. I never need to remember to charge it as it all happens automatically.
Using signs seems to be the normal approach in European countries with fewer sign options, except at least AIUI Belgium where two-way cycling allowed on one way roads is default. May be other exceptions for 30kph streets as France mentioned above, but I can't find easy information.
Just this morning, a little girl, aged five or six, passed us on a pavement that has blind bends. About five metres behind her was her mother, who was busy looking down at her mobile phone as she pedalled. They were not going fast, but neither wore helmets.
Which apparently refers to a computer and nothing to do with any of PBs Deputy Editors!!
It's the group harder than an erection
That shows no affection
They wanna ban us on Capitol Hill
'Cause it's "Die muthafuckas, die muthafuckas!" still
Edit: For Leon's info, this is an ink tank machine. Bottles to top[ up, no cartridges. Tho I believe Canon do similar.
Newton Knight is a moderately famous example.
Like vaping or smoking, its a revolting habit.
Driving is safer than cycling but I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive without putting my seat belt on first, don't be a braindead moron - put your helmet on!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Baby
Perhaps you should be more concerned with the evil actions of the orcs, and less concerned with the very apt description of their behaviour?
To Orcs.
Israel in 1948 and 1967
Turkey into northern Cyprus
Putin into Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Morocco into Western Sahara
India’s annexation of Goa and other Portuguese territories
Chinese invasion of Tibet
?
My kids absolutely love their bikes and their rollerskates but they know better than to ever go on either without their helmet, so they don't. Its just routine for them, put the helmet on, then get on their bike/get their skates on.
For adults there's liberal arguments that people should be free to choose, though that doesn't apply in law to seat belts. There's no rational reason why it should be mandatory to wear a seat belt, inside a vehicle that provides some protection already and has airbags etc too - but completely optional to wear a helmet when completely exposed to the elements and the ground if you fall or have an accident.
And ultimately the more normal cycling is, the safer we all are.
There is also an argument (and I'm not 100% convinced, but I can see the merits) that the safer you make people, the more risks they will take, and the more risks people will take with them. Studies have shown (have they? I vaguely recall so, anyway, but again, take with a pinch of salt) that drivers drive less carefully around helmeted cyclists than around helmetless ones.
This, by the way, is also the view of GM's ex-cycling commissioner Chris Boardman, who has a personal interest as well as a professional one as his mum was, I think, killed in a cycling accident.
Oh and in next bit it says Manchester built of cotton. I'm no scientist but ....
As for those claimed studies have not been substantiated. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents disputes that claimed study and says its been disproven, though the link they cite in their citations seems to be dead.
One study found that drivers showed more risky behaviour towards a cyclist wearing a helmet. Instances
included the driver overtaking cyclists wearing a helmet closer than those not wearing a helmet. As a possible
explanation, the author mentioned that a driver might see helmeted cyclists as more skilled than cyclists not
wearing a helmet, therefore selecting smaller safety margins31
.
While some research has been suggestive of this, reanalysis and re-interpretation appears to disprove any
support for this notion32
.
https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/cycle-helmets-factsheet.pdf
Helmets save lives. Chris Boardman is wrong (and I'd put it much stronger than that).
[1] It was either "How to Rig an Election" (Brian Klaas with Nick Cheeseman, 2018) or "Twilight of Democracy" (subtitles vary) (Anne Applebaum, 2021), or both. Libraries are great.
https://www.waterstones.com/book/how-to-rig-an-election/nic-cheeseman/brian-klaas/9780300246650
https://www.waterstones.com/book/twilight-of-democracy/anne-applebaum/9780141991672
https://youtu.be/L1JYHNX8pdo?si=L2qYU9oYsWHNHPc7
Word processing has allowed people to make things needless complex because previously it was painful to have to get things typed up and printed so that limited people doing it.
The only question is whether they have lab tested an implosion mechanism. If they have, , and manufactured such mechanisms, they could be hours from making a bomb. If not, a crash program of weeks.
The biggest among which are those which will only run via some sort of subscription arrangement - like the instant ink programme you so rightly lament.
We have some HP job. Spent hours trying to get the laptops to talk to it wirelessly. Gave up in the end: if we need to print something else, we just plug the printers USB cable into the computer in question like God intended.
(Our family is slightly odd; I have been a tech refusenik since my 20s; my Dad delights in tech and in being able to do things remotely that really don't need to be done remotely like change the settings on the fountain in his pond).
Weirdly, however, it prints off entirely happily from my daughter's phone (and possibly from other phones too, though I've never felt the need to print something off from a phone). I have also accidentally printed something off on my home printer when I've been at work and very definitely not plugged into the printer.
The ones in India are a good example though - no-one really questions Goa's Indian-ness.
Now, after I've just installed an exciting new range of official HP ink cartridges which barely fit and make no sense, it has decided to go on permanent strike, after a lifetime of dicking me about
It sits there in the corner, smugly dysfunctional. It has NO IDEA what I am about to do to it. Wanker
Or, better still, just go all Office Space on the old printer
Since I learned that, I have been looking for those mushrooms, in order to fight back on behalf of the animal kingdom.
And some places have entered the doom loop where streets are seen as too dangerous for people to use, so children have to be driven everywhere, so the streets are busier and more dangerous... With the side effect that @NerysHughes points out.
(Similarly, people having big cars because it makes them safer, even if it increases the risk for everyone else.)
Useful servants they may be, but cars are lousy masters. A bit like Dominic Cummings or Alistair Campbell.
Re helmets, they help in some situations (my wife, as a kid, came off when racing her brother down a hill - I've seen a photo of the helmet and it no doubt helped her) but not in others, obviously depending on the impact site. As with many things bike, there's the problem that at the cheap end they're a bit shit and annoying and at the decent end a bit expensive for the occasional user. For example, my helmet, a Giro, cost somewhere around £70, I think, but is so comfortable that I can forget I'm wearing it. Easy to justify on a commute - it's far less than filling up the car once - but harder for an occasional user.
100% of cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh involved a driver. Cyclists in Amsterdam/Copenhagen don't wear helmets.
Our cycle infrastructure effectiveness should be measured as = number of cyclists * proportion not wearing a helmet.
How the holy moley do these people string a life together?
Senator Bob Menendez charged with taking bribes.
The cyclists people see on the road look like they are going into war. Hardly the positive, carefree, relaxed vibe you get in Europe, where cycling is normal.
After a number of pedestrians were killed by drivers in Glasgow, Police Scotland advised people to wear high vis while they were just walking round the city. Victim blaming arseholes.
“Front Towards Enemy”
There have been no great technological leaps forward since the mp3 player that I have felt the need to be a part of.
#MamouthTartare
Would you wear a seatbelt in your car when 'pootling along' at 10 MPH?
Highwoods (Colchester) Council By-Election Result:
🔶 LDM: 39.4% (-7.1)
🌹 LAB: 31.3% (-1.4)
🌳 CON: 29.3% (+12.3)
No GRN (-3.8) as previous.
Lib Dem GAIN from Labour*.
It seems the Lib Dems are performing better than labour, and if I was a betting person (which I am not) I would be betting on a Lib Dem gain in Mid Bedfordshire
A fair number of parkrunners manage a 10mph pace. Is that what you would recommend for them? It's absurd.
Aside from the drivers, cycling isn't so dangerous that it requires a helmet. I never wore a helmet when skiing. I even broke my leg skiing, but it never occurred to me to wear a helmet. I only wear a helmet cycling because of having to mix it with dangerous car traffic.