...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
I agree that he will stand if Trump is the GOP nominee. If the SC ruled that Trump was not eligible (highly unlikely in my view) he may well feel that he has done his duty and stand down.
He has been a very successful President. Although there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media the economic performance of the US economy throughout his time has been outstanding. He has made real progress in fixing dilapidated infrastructure. He has been resolute, and rightly so, on both Ukraine and Taiwan.
His biggest problem has been immigration but as we know all too well that is a serious headache for any incumbent government in every western country. If he was 20 years younger he would, in my view, be a shoo in for a second term.
He has massively increased the budget deficit
On 31/12/21 (post Covid) government debt was $29.5 trillion
As of 31/12/23 $34 trillion
That’s a lot of money in just 2 years.
It's a 15% increase. Trump increased the debt from $19.5 trillion to $26.9 trillion in four years - that's a 37% increase.
It's not going to be significant in the result, one way or the other.
More significantly, a large part of Biden's spending was genuine investment.
Trump gave America's wealthier a $2T tax cut. Biden gave subsidies to get back chip manufacturing to the US - along with battery and EV factories.
We are spending like drunken sailors but that’s ok because everyone else is too:
If your economy is growing at a faster rate than your debt, then you're getting it right. As is the case with the US at the moment.
Especially when growth is being driven by investment rather than consumption. There has been, until recently, no increase in real wages on average. Like us, the trade deficit remains a concern but it has been on a declining trend of late, partly driven by oil and gas production as you said.
And coming up for 14m additional jobs. Just a mind blowing figure.
One reason America is doing quite well, economically, compared to stagnant Europe, is that America seized the opportunity of the Ukraine war to blow up Nordstream (via proxies) thus fucking up the German economy, a major industrial rival
What makes this especially piquant is that Biden and others literally and explicitly promised they would do this. Destroy Nordstream. And Germans meekly accept it, or they are entirely unaware of it
You have to admire American chutzpah and brio, here. They barely bothered to hide what they planned to do: to a major ally
Its this the standard of "analysis" in the Gazette these days?
An utterly unfounded conjecture with not a shred of evidence being inflated into a ludicrous conspiracy theory with implications so earth shattering that of course it *must* be true.
Of did you just have a fifth pitcher of Cambodian woo-woo?
Either way, in vino veritas (or in woo woo, veritas, anyway)
No wonder the right wing media is imploding under the weight of its own stupidity.
When it comes to Nordstream, just ask: cui bono?
Above all others, it’s the USA. Now you can go back to digging your fall-out shelter
Cui bono doesn’t prove anything. It's just a bit of learned sounding greek. People often bono from something they've haven't themselves done. Happens all the time.
Are you subtly flaunting your working class origins by mistaking it for Greek?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
I agree that he will stand if Trump is the GOP nominee. If the SC ruled that Trump was not eligible (highly unlikely in my view) he may well feel that he has done his duty and stand down.
He has been a very successful President. Although there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media the economic performance of the US economy throughout his time has been outstanding. He has made real progress in fixing dilapidated infrastructure. He has been resolute, and rightly so, on both Ukraine and Taiwan.
His biggest problem has been immigration but as we know all too well that is a serious headache for any incumbent government in every western country. If he was 20 years younger he would, in my view, be a shoo in for a second term.
He has massively increased the budget deficit
On 31/12/21 (post Covid) government debt was $29.5 trillion
As of 31/12/23 $34 trillion
That’s a lot of money in just 2 years.
It's a 15% increase. Trump increased the debt from $19.5 trillion to $26.9 trillion in four years - that's a 37% increase.
It's not going to be significant in the result, one way or the other.
More significantly, a large part of Biden's spending was genuine investment.
Trump gave America's wealthier a $2T tax cut. Biden gave subsidies to get back chip manufacturing to the US - along with battery and EV factories.
We are spending like drunken sailors but that’s ok because everyone else is too:
If your economy is growing at a faster rate than your debt, then you're getting it right. As is the case with the US at the moment.
Especially when growth is being driven by investment rather than consumption. There has been, until recently, no increase in real wages on average. Like us, the trade deficit remains a concern but it has been on a declining trend of late, partly driven by oil and gas production as you said.
And coming up for 14m additional jobs. Just a mind blowing figure.
One reason America is doing quite well, economically, compared to stagnant Europe, is that America seized the opportunity of the Ukraine war to blow up Nordstream (via proxies) thus fucking up the German economy, a major industrial rival
What makes this especially piquant is that Biden and others literally and explicitly promised they would do this. Destroy Nordstream. And Germans meekly accept it, or they are entirely unaware of it
You have to admire American chutzpah and brio, here. They barely bothered to hide what they planned to do: to a major ally
Its this the standard of "analysis" in the Gazette these days?
An utterly unfounded conjecture with not a shred of evidence being inflated into a ludicrous conspiracy theory with implications so earth shattering that of course it *must* be true.
Of did you just have a fifth pitcher of Cambodian woo-woo?
Either way, in vino veritas (or in woo woo, veritas, anyway)
No wonder the right wing media is imploding under the weight of its own stupidity.
When it comes to Nordstream, just ask: cui bono?
Above all others, it’s the USA. Now you can go back to digging your fall-out shelter
Cui bono doesn’t prove anything. It's just a bit of learned sounding greek. People often bono from something they've haven't themselves done. Happens all the time.
Are you subtly flaunting your working class origins by mistaking it for Greek?
lol. He actually thinks it is Greek
You can take the lad out of Darlington
He may be joking but I think he’s just a member of THE hoi polloi
Do you remember when somebody on here called you a "pontificating poltroon"?
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
I think if you ask most people in the street what they understand by a moon landing they are not going to say you dropped a brick on the moon....they will think of people on the moon
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
I think if you ask most people in the street what they understand by a moon landing they are not going to say you dropped a brick on the moon....they will think of people on the moon
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
I think if you ask most people in the street what they understand by a moon landing they are not going to say you dropped a brick on the moon....they will think of people on the moon
Have you actually done this experiment?
No but neither have you so your point is what exactly?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
Bollocks. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows the difference between a 'moon landing' and a 'manned moon landing'. The average man in the street is clearly a lot brighter than you.
"The prospect has driven some people to the brink of virtue-signalling derangement."
"No 10’s scientific advisers warned that the government should tell people not to shake hands on the same day that Boris Johnson boasted about doing so “with everybody” at a hospital where there were confirmed coronavirus patients."
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
Bollocks. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence knows the difference between a 'moon landing' and a 'manned moon landing'. The average man in the street is clearly a lot brighter than you.
Go out on the street ask about moon landings they will cite apollo 11 not some damp ass probe
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
I think if you ask most people in the street what they understand by a moon landing they are not going to say you dropped a brick on the moon....they will think of people on the moon
Have you actually done this experiment?
No but neither have you so your point is what exactly?
I'm not the one claiming to know what people think! If you asked them if the act of landing something on the moon counted as a "moon landing", what do you think they would say?
I've supplied you with a reference to show the definition of the phrase, and can supply more if you wish (to the great delight of others, I imagine). I have yet to find one which defines "moon landing" exclusively referring to manned landings. What would an unmanned moon landing even be called?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
Back in the old days before the 2010GE I would often ask here how this country was going to compete with people who would be as intelligent and educated as us but who were willing to work harder for less money and under few restrictions.
I never received an answer - judging by subsequent events no government in the western world has had the answer either.
So okay that means very limited economic growth in the western world.
We can live with that as we started from a high base.
But we've acted and spent as though we were entitled to the benefits of economic growth even if it wasn't being achieved.
In purely competitive terms: It doesn't help if you gift them your industrial base and a century of R & D over about 30 years. Offshoring our industry to cheaper climes has been a short term bonanza and long term disaster.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
Errr fine.
But MJW's point was that the major benficiaries of the malaise are left wing parties in the UK because most people see the Conservative Party as right of center.
And he's correct. Most people do see the Conservative Party as right of center. Now you - and @Mortimer - have a different view, and that's fine.
But I think even you would agree that a poll in the UK asking "do you think the Conservative Party is right or left wing" would come back overwhelmingly with right wing.
And people will react against the perceived hue of the government.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
Yeah it's more complex than "hating Britain" he's from a tradition that actually hates capitalist western democracy, viewing it as flawed as it will always be captured by wealthy interests.
Which is fine of and in itself. It is imperfect (though better than what anyone else has come up with to date).
The problem comes because that distate often ends up in a place where you end up excusing or siding with those who are its enemies - even if they are vile and should be antithetical to anyone on the left.
In the case of the Skripals it led to being very weird about it because admitting what Putin is and how dangerous that is would mean admitting the flaws in his own worldview and that our system is worth defending and you need to be tougher on defence than he finds at all comfortable. In the case of antisemitism over the years it led to him excusing the inexcusable because an admission that some of those who are anti-Israel and anti-west are so because they believe genuinely repulsive things, would again lend a certain legitimacy to Israel and its allies he is loathe to give.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
You said "countries":
"Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the US"
Who apart from the us has landed humans on the moon?
Sigh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A Moon landing or lunar landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both crewed and robotic missions. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was the Soviet Union's Luna 2, on 13 September 1959.[3]
No one has claimed Japan would be the fifth country to send a manned mission to land on the moon.
Its not a moon landing to most people though is the point....is it a moon landing if an orbiter drops a brick that lands on the moon...by your criteria yes...most normal people will say fuck thats not a moon landing
Feel free to share a definition where "moon landing" refers exclusively to crewed landings.
To most normal people yes moon landing they think of as people...hardly their fault you aren't normal. Is landing a brick on the moon a moon landing? By your definition yes.......most people will go thats not a fucking moon landing
To "most normal people"? Any evidence to back up this speculation about what people think when they hear the words "moon landing"? Meanwhile, look at any reference material and you will find them disagreeing with your view.
I think if you ask most people in the street what they understand by a moon landing they are not going to say you dropped a brick on the moon....they will think of people on the moon
Have you actually done this experiment?
No but neither have you so your point is what exactly?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
Back in the old days before the 2010GE I would often ask here how this country was going to compete with people who would be as intelligent and educated as us but who were willing to work harder for less money and under few restrictions.
I never received an answer - judging by subsequent events no government in the western world has had the answer either.
So okay that means very limited economic growth in the western world.
We can live with that as we started from a high base.
But we've acted and spent as though we were entitled to the benefits of economic growth even if it wasn't being achieved.
In purely competitive terms: It doesn't help if you gift them your industrial base and a century of R & D over about 30 years. Offshoring our industry to cheaper climes has been a short term bonanza and long term disaster.
And it does not help either if you invite them to send all their brightest students to come over here and take up the places at our top institutions. And yet that has been government policy for ages, simply because our governments have seen that as a cheap way to fund our higher education system.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
I think "His deep love of London" is not quite what I'd reference as "quintessentially English". Unless you mean "common dislike of".
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
I agree that he will stand if Trump is the GOP nominee. If the SC ruled that Trump was not eligible (highly unlikely in my view) he may well feel that he has done his duty and stand down.
He has been a very successful President. Although there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media the economic performance of the US economy throughout his time has been outstanding. He has made real progress in fixing dilapidated infrastructure. He has been resolute, and rightly so, on both Ukraine and Taiwan.
His biggest problem has been immigration but as we know all too well that is a serious headache for any incumbent government in every western country. If he was 20 years younger he would, in my view, be a shoo in for a second term.
He has massively increased the budget deficit
On 31/12/21 (post Covid) government debt was $29.5 trillion
As of 31/12/23 $34 trillion
That’s a lot of money in just 2 years.
It's a 15% increase. Trump increased the debt from $19.5 trillion to $26.9 trillion in four years - that's a 37% increase.
It's not going to be significant in the result, one way or the other.
More significantly, a large part of Biden's spending was genuine investment.
Trump gave America's wealthier a $2T tax cut. Biden gave subsidies to get back chip manufacturing to the US - along with battery and EV factories.
We are spending like drunken sailors but that’s ok because everyone else is too:
If your economy is growing at a faster rate than your debt, then you're getting it right. As is the case with the US at the moment.
My God, if we're having this much debate over what constitutes a spacecraft 'landing', I hope to goodness no evil sod comes in here and mentions the 'manned' versus 'crewed' debate....
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
Don't the warheads explode above ground to cause maximum damage?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
Ah, another nuclear-war-phobic bigot. :-)
It would be dreadfully disappointing. No big boom.
I know we've said it many times already, but how could a system which was known to be faulty in 1999 possibly be installed in thousands of post offices, and then any problems with it denied for the next 15 years?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
I know we've said it many times already, but how could a system which was known to be faulty in 1999 possibly be installed in thousands of post offices, and then any problems with it denied for the next 15 years?
The opposite reason to the NHS spending £10bn on their new computer system, then abandoning the project without ever implementing it.
I know we've said it many times already, but how could a system which was known to be faulty in 1999 possibly be installed in thousands of post offices, and then any problems with it denied for the next 15 years?
Simple answer which I have seen in private companies someone high up bet their career on it and even when its shown to be a huge steaming pile its full steam ahead because they wont back down
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
But - the quote in question was discussing the challenges facing the current Japanese unmanned lander trying for a pinpoint landing.
So - of course unmanned landings count, otherwise the article and quote in question wouldn’t even exist, because they’d not be discussing the challenges facing the unmanned lander.
A big IT project for the NHS. What could possibly go wrong?
I too have a plan to reform our broken NHS (without photo-op with jacket off and sleeves rolled up à la Boris and now Keir, as if ready to deliver a baby in the hospital car park).
Yesterday I was in hospital for a prod and probe and the student nurse could not find some tape so had to ask Sister where it was kept. We often see the same thing with new doctors in fly-on-the-wall documentaries. So my plan is: label the sodding cupboards.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
Don't the warheads explode above ground to cause maximum damage?
Depends on what you are doing.
For surface destruction, you want an airburst.
For buried targets (silos) you want to couple the shockwave to the ground. A single salvage fuse* can do that.
For deep buried installations you want actual earth penetration. Which you (probably) can’t do with an ICBM warhead. It’s going too fast. Hence a mission for bombers.
*salvage fuse was a British idea. When the weapon actually hits the ground, the external shell of the weapon contains two layers of metal. When they are smashed into each other, this create a short circuit and fires the weapon. Which completes detonation in a few microseconds. Long before the weapon starts to be damaged by hitting the ground at Mach 15+. The salvage fuse got its name from it second function - on approach to the target, the safeties disconnect. So if the weapon is hit by defences in last few thousand feet of its journey it detonates.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
I know we've said it many times already, but how could a system which was known to be faulty in 1999 possibly be installed in thousands of post offices, and then any problems with it denied for the next 15 years?
Simple answer which I have seen in private companies someone high up bet their career on it and even when its shown to be a huge steaming pile its full steam ahead because they wont back down
This is known as nailing their trousers to the masthead.
Because climbing down becomes somewhere between impossible and extremely embarrassing.
A big IT project for the NHS. What could possibly go wrong?
I too have a plan to reform our broken NHS (without photo-op with jacket off and sleeves rolled up à la Boris and now Keir, as if ready to deliver a baby in the hospital car park).
Yesterday I was in hospital for a prod and probe and the student nurse could not find some tape so had to ask Sister where it was kept. We often see the same thing with new doctors in fly-on-the-wall documentaries. So my plan is: label the sodding cupboards.
They probably aren't labelled for similar reasons to why the drawers in my classroom aren't labelled "scissors".
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
My God, if we're having this much debate over what constitutes a spacecraft 'landing', I hope to goodness no evil sod comes in here and mentions the 'manned' versus 'crewed' debate....
What do you call a crossover between Star Wars and Back to the Future?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
Ah, another nuclear-war-phobic bigot. :-)
Ah yes, the TWERPs. Tritium warhead exclusionary radical peacenik
I agree that he will stand if Trump is the GOP nominee. If the SC ruled that Trump was not eligible (highly unlikely in my view) he may well feel that he has done his duty and stand down.
He has been a very successful President. Although there is a lot of gloom and doom in the media the economic performance of the US economy throughout his time has been outstanding. He has made real progress in fixing dilapidated infrastructure. He has been resolute, and rightly so, on both Ukraine and Taiwan.
His biggest problem has been immigration but as we know all too well that is a serious headache for any incumbent government in every western country. If he was 20 years younger he would, in my view, be a shoo in for a second term.
He has massively increased the budget deficit
On 31/12/21 (post Covid) government debt was $29.5 trillion
As of 31/12/23 $34 trillion
That’s a lot of money in just 2 years.
It's a 15% increase. Trump increased the debt from $19.5 trillion to $26.9 trillion in four years - that's a 37% increase.
It's not going to be significant in the result, one way or the other.
More significantly, a large part of Biden's spending was genuine investment.
Trump gave America's wealthier a $2T tax cut. Biden gave subsidies to get back chip manufacturing to the US - along with battery and EV factories.
We are spending like drunken sailors but that’s ok because everyone else is too:
If your economy is growing at a faster rate than your debt, then you're getting it right. As is the case with the US at the moment.
Especially when growth is being driven by investment rather than consumption. There has been, until recently, no increase in real wages on average. Like us, the trade deficit remains a concern but it has been on a declining trend of late, partly driven by oil and gas production as you said.
And coming up for 14m additional jobs. Just a mind blowing figure.
One reason America is doing quite well, economically, compared to stagnant Europe, is that America seized the opportunity of the Ukraine war to blow up Nordstream (via proxies) thus fucking up the German economy, a major industrial rival
What makes this especially piquant is that Biden and others literally and explicitly promised they would do this. Destroy Nordstream. And Germans meekly accept it, or they are entirely unaware of it
You have to admire American chutzpah and brio, here. They barely bothered to hide what they planned to do: to a major ally
But the primary reason for their outperformance since about 2010 is indeed their lower energy costs.
World’s largest oil producer now too.
Blowing up Nordstream was win-win-win for the USA
It cut off a serious source of income for Putin It reduced Putin’s leverage over Europe It chivvied Germany into the American team It made America stronger, relatively, as a major energy producer It screwed a major economic rival, Germany, creating more jobs in America
I think the last was probably the least of America’s aims but it surely still figured. Superpowers act with intense selfishness: because they can
And the Ukraine war gave the Americans the perfect cover to do all this: via Ukrainian and Polish proxies so giving DC plausible deniability. A master stroke. Genuinely admirable statecraft allied with very clever subterfuge
It’s been noted before, but your analytical approach is admirably consistent: you will always opt for the most exciting, box office explanation of events that have happened, and the most exciting scenario for events that haven’t yet happened. And then force through the logic however strong or shaky against all comers.
This means you are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. When you’re right it’s memorable because it means something exciting happened; when you’re wrong it’s forgettable because nothing exciting happened. Neat.
The USA blowing nordstream would be the most box office explanation - Ukraine or Russia are boring options - but I don’t buy it, I think it was Russia as a means to avoid legal recourse to Gazprom for cutting supply.
The Lab leak is of course the most exciting explanation for Covid, but it’s also credible and since late 2020 I’ve been - with reservations - on board with Lab leak.
On the rivers of blood stuff you’re also opting for the Hollywood blockbuster timeline and there I think and hope you are wrong but am not confident on the matter.
Is there a mirror image PBer who’s predictions are always the most boring possible outcome?
I do like a bit of drama but it’s not true I always go for the more exciting explanation. Eg that weird semi conductor story? Meh. And I said so
Believe it or not - ok it’s quite believable - I entertain lots of wild theories but i also dismiss many. I do come to this forum with the ones I believe, because they make for provocative discussion and because PB is - I fear - quite hidebound and over-staffed with cautious nerdy types who are overly respectful of consensus and authority (especially scientific) and also socially introvert - so scared of going out on a limb and being even lonelier
All that said: I love pb. And PBers. I have learned many many things on here from some exceedingly wise people - some on here tonight. And for that I am genuinely and properly thankful. X
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
Ah, another nuclear-war-phobic bigot. :-)
Ah yes, the TWERPs. Tritium warhead exclusionary radical peacenik
A big IT project for the NHS. What could possibly go wrong?
I too have a plan to reform our broken NHS (without photo-op with jacket off and sleeves rolled up à la Boris and now Keir, as if ready to deliver a baby in the hospital car park).
Yesterday I was in hospital for a prod and probe and the student nurse could not find some tape so had to ask Sister where it was kept. We often see the same thing with new doctors in fly-on-the-wall documentaries. So my plan is: label the sodding cupboards.
I hope all went well for you
I have experienced the NHS and A & E (twice) over the last 4 months here in Wales and there are huge problems, but to be fair each and every nurse, specialist nurse, doctor and consultant has been wonderful
I have no idea how or even when it will improve despite politicians promises
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
They don't hit their target they land on them. When they do hit their target as sometimes they are meant to do and sometimes they do by accident they don't call them landings. They are called crashes.
So just dropping from the sky is not a landing.
Controlled soft (and because I can't think of another word) landing is a landing.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
It's even in the Mail's URL. Couldn't be arsed to check the Sun, etc.. you get the point.
Head lines are front page news
Are we really going to move on to debating the meaning of the word "headline"?
Look what I am trying to say, and I say it as one of them, what is interesting to science geeks is of no interest to most people. If japan was landing people on the moon it would be front page headlines...they arent so most people dont care and are uninterested which is why it is buried in the science section which most people never read. I even agree that probes probably give us more scientific data than landing people there. I am just saying if its not humans most people dont give a shit
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What on earth has that got to do with anything?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
Sighs my point is not about the term landing....you ask people in the street how many moon landings there have been I am pretty sure they will say 1, ask how many mars landings they will say none.....most people regard the term landing as putting humans there not probes successful or not No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
Then why are all the headlines about a “moon landing”, if everyone knows that only refers to moon landings with people? I’ll give you a hint… because it is one.
Well apart from the fact its hardly news headlines its in spacewatch global which probably has a few thousand readers worldwide.....dont see much news headlines about it on the bbc, the gaurdian, the mail, the sun, cnn etc....probably been highlighted in japan maybe
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What if a small boat comes ashore on the Kent coast with no asylum seekers in it?
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What if a small boat comes ashore on the Kent coast with no asylum seekers in it?
Has that boat landed?
What if asylum seekers came ashore on the Kent coast without a boat?
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
Errr fine.
But MJW's point was that the major benficiaries of the malaise are left wing parties in the UK because most people see the Conservative Party as right of center.
And he's correct. Most people do see the Conservative Party as right of center. Now you - and @Mortimer - have a different view, and that's fine.
But I think even you would agree that a poll in the UK asking "do you think the Conservative Party is right or left wing" would come back overwhelmingly with right wing.
And people will react against the perceived hue of the government.
Indeed. The most significant PM of the past 50 years was Thatcher. While excluding Covid, which was non-parisan, the biggest event of the past 10 is Brexit. We had a New Labour interregnum but many of what its admirers would claim as achievements were pared back by Cameron and Osborne in the name of austerity.
The left does hold significant sway culturally, but fundamentally we live in a country that's been largely defined by Tory governments. Which of course doesn't mean they've been successful in their aims. But they are the ones who have to carry the can in public perceptions.
That's not to say the right's policies caused all our problems but fundamentally if those who are in their 20s and 30s and feel poorer than their parents they are more likely to blame those who have been in power most of the time and enacted their projects.
Compare that to France where a political elite has endlessly failed to enact social and labour market reform such that many younger people feel shut out of prosperity and it's easy to see why the backlash trends right, whereas here it trends left.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
What if a small boat comes ashore on the Kent coast with no asylum seekers in it?
Has that boat landed?
What if asylum seekers came ashore on the Kent coast without a boat?
Get them into the Olympic swimming programme - an aquatic Zola Budd plan…
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
I think "His deep love of London" is not quite what I'd reference as "quintessentially English". Unless you mean "common dislike of".
Corbyn's a complete crank whose general mild mannered civility disguises his less pleasant eccentricities and fossilised opinions. I'd call that quintessential to many an Englishman.
Same way the Rees-Moggs of the world can sonehow be simultaneously superficially civil yet also breathtakingly rude.
Any pilot will tell you that a good landing is one that you walk away from, whereas a great landing is one where the aircraft remains serviceable afterwards!
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
Errr fine.
But MJW's point was that the major benficiaries of the malaise are left wing parties in the UK because most people see the Conservative Party as right of center.
And he's correct. Most people do see the Conservative Party as right of center. Now you - and @Mortimer - have a different view, and that's fine.
But I think even you would agree that a poll in the UK asking "do you think the Conservative Party is right or left wing" would come back overwhelmingly with right wing.
And people will react against the perceived hue of the government.
Indeed. The most significant PM of the past 50 years was Thatcher. While excluding Covid, which was non-parisan, the biggest event of the past 10 is Brexit. We had a New Labour interregnum but many of what its admirers would claim as achievements were pared back by Cameron and Osborne in the name of austerity.
The left does hold significant sway culturally, but fundamentally we live in a country that's been largely defined by Tory governments. Which of course doesn't mean they've been successful in their aims. But they are the ones who have to carry the can in public perceptions.
That's not to say the right's policies caused all our problems but fundamentally if those who are in their 20s and 30s and feel poorer than their parents they are more likely to blame those who have been in power most of the time and enacted their projects.
Compare that to France where a political elite has endlessly failed to enact social and labour market reform such that many younger people feel shut out of prosperity and it's easy to see why the backlash trends right, whereas here it trends left.
Go back 10 years further and the most significant political event was the Conservative government taking us *in* to Europe so perhaps your thesis has some merit. Ironic that so much change came from the party that calls itself Conservative. Devolution from Labour is an exception.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
Ah, another nuclear-war-phobic bigot. :-)
Ah yes, the TWERPs. Tritium warhead exclusionary radical peacenik
Deuterium, shirley?
The primary (assuming a modern multistager - aka Hydrogen Bomb) will be fusion booster with some Tritium in the middle of the pit.
The secondary contain lithium deutiride. Generally infused (porous ceramic) more tritium. In the centre of the secondary is another fission bomb (aka the Sparkplug) which is also Tritium boosted.
The lithium, under neutron bombardment, will turn into more tritium. Which kicks up the fusion yield and in turn produces even more neutrons…
All this is because tritium fuses more easily than deuterium.
Here's a crazy stat for you: as of Oct 2023, the global solar deployment rate is approximately one megawatt per minute.
That is, every minute, solar panels capable of generating one MW are being deployed, somewhere in the world.
That sounds insanely fast to me - it's 1-1.5GW per day.
What’s the source for that? It seems reasonable actually. It would mean 1.44gw x 365 = 565gw per year.
This would be capacity, not actual generation. Global electric generation capacity is apparently 8,800gw. So that’s about 5% of generation capacity per year. A lot, but not unimaginable.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
On the subject of drones, can drone pilots win medals for bravery?
Murdoch hedging his bets? Times goes lightly for Starmer. The Sun goes in with its boots on for Sunak.
Papers catering to their readership I think. Your average Times reader is more liberal and has almost certainly lost patience with the Tories. The Sun's remaining readership are possibly one of the few segments of the electorate still pro-Tory.
Plus don't underestimate embarrassment as a factor. The Sun went all in on the Tories. To the extent their political editor was once a prominent heavily connect activist. It would be profoundly embarrassing to get into bed with Labour now. Much easier for The Times to emphasise its more Labour-friendly side.
Here's a crazy stat for you: as of Oct 2023, the global solar deployment rate is approximately one megawatt per minute.
That is, every minute, solar panels capable of generating one MW are being deployed, somewhere in the world.
That sounds insanely fast to me - it's 1-1.5GW per day.
What’s the source for that? It seems reasonable actually. It would mean 1.44gw x 365 = 565gw per year.
This would be capacity, not actual generation. Global electric generation capacity is apparently 8,800gw. So that’s about 5% of generation capacity per year. A lot, but not unimaginable.
Casey Handmer. Someone who's rather evangelical about this sort of thing, but generally a source I trust.
I was reading his blog for years, but dropped off a little the last few years. Recently my son's been fascinated by the Herculaneum scrolls, and it turned out that Handmer's been heavily involved in decoding them...
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
On the subject of drones, can drone pilots win medals for bravery?
Being a large drone pilot is one the most horrible jobs in the military. They get to drop a few bombs, watch the bad guys explode, then go back to see their families every night.
Evening all - as promised, if a bit later than expected, below is the list of 2024 elections (obviously we’ve already had Taiwan and Iowa) that I’ll be keeping an eye on, plus in Part 2, my 2023 album rankings and a quick look ahead to 2024 releases.
2024 elections
23 January – New Hampshire primary
14 February – Indonesia presidential (26 June second round if needed)
15 February – Kingswood and Wellingborough by-elections
5 March – Super Tuesday primaries
10 March – Portugal
15-17 March – Russia presidential
April-May – India
2 May – UK local elections, including London Mayor & Assembly
May – South Africa (could be as late as August)
2 June – Mexico presidential
6-9 June – Euro-elections
9 June – Belgium
5 November – US presidential, 1/3 Senate, House, 11 governors
November – Romania presidential (second round Nov/Dec if needed)
TBC – Austria (by autumn) TBC – UK general election TBC – Rochdale by-election
Government formation pending – Netherlands
That’s everything I can think of but I’m sure Stodge will have one or two others! 😊
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
Errr fine.
But MJW's point was that the major benficiaries of the malaise are left wing parties in the UK because most people see the Conservative Party as right of center.
And he's correct. Most people do see the Conservative Party as right of center. Now you - and @Mortimer - have a different view, and that's fine.
But I think even you would agree that a poll in the UK asking "do you think the Conservative Party is right or left wing" would come back overwhelmingly with right wing.
And people will react against the perceived hue of the government.
Indeed. The most significant PM of the past 50 years was Thatcher. While excluding Covid, which was non-parisan, the biggest event of the past 10 is Brexit. We had a New Labour interregnum but many of what its admirers would claim as achievements were pared back by Cameron and Osborne in the name of austerity.
The left does hold significant sway culturally, but fundamentally we live in a country that's been largely defined by Tory governments. Which of course doesn't mean they've been successful in their aims. But they are the ones who have to carry the can in public perceptions.
That's not to say the right's policies caused all our problems but fundamentally if those who are in their 20s and 30s and feel poorer than their parents they are more likely to blame those who have been in power most of the time and enacted their projects.
Compare that to France where a political elite has endlessly failed to enact social and labour market reform such that many younger people feel shut out of prosperity and it's easy to see why the backlash trends right, whereas here it trends left.
Go back 10 years further and the most significant political event was the Conservative government taking us *in* to Europe so perhaps your thesis has some merit. Ironic that so much change came from the party that calls itself Conservative. Devolution from Labour is an exception.
Yes. And if you look of the age profiles of leave and remain, many of those voting leave did so as they remembered back to a time before went in and believed it a happier one.
The same is likely in reverse with those under 40. If the country is in a mess you remember back to the 90s and 2000s as a better time and ascribe part of that to us having a Labour government and being in the EU.
Murdoch hedging his bets? Times goes lightly for Starmer. The Sun goes in with its boots on for Sunak.
Papers catering to their readership I think. Your average Times reader is more liberal and has almost certainly lost patience with the Tories. The Sun's remaining readership are possibly one of the few segments of the electorate still pro-Tory.
Plus don't underestimate embarrassment as a factor. The Sun went all in on the Tories. To the extent their political editor was once a prominent heavily connect activist. It would be profoundly embarrassing to get into bed with Labour now. Much easier for The Times to emphasise its more Labour-friendly side.
I think The Sun might genuinely sit on the fence for this one. Say they don’t really like any of them, Sunak isn’t populist enough, and then claim bragging rights that they weren’t strictly backing the losing team when the Tories lose.
I expect The Sun and The Mail to fully hitch themselves to the populist right after the GE (to the extent elements of them at not there already).
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
So I ended up with 21 albums released last year, ahead of the 15 from 2022 but well behind 2021’s record haul of 32. Once again male vocals are very much in the minority, with only three of the 2023 albums featuring them predominantly. All the albums below are in my Spotify “album collection” apart from Blur and Lana Del Rey being on CD, which were acquired on release day.
Positions 21 to 11 are as follows, starting with 21:
Arlo Parks, Paramore, Ellie Goulding, Depeche Mode, Mitski, Holly Humberstone, PJ Harvey, Everything But The Girl, The Japanese House, Molly Burch, with OMD in 11th place.
Positions 10 to 1 (release date, UK album chart position, UK sales certification if any):
10 Blur - The Ballad Of Darren (21 July, #1, silver)
9 Jorja Smith – Falling Or Flying (29 Sep, #3)
8 Jessie Ware – That! Feels Good! (28 Apr, #3)
7 Gabrielle Aplin – Phosphorescent (6 Jan, #15)
6 Slowdive – Everything Is Alive (1 Sep, #6)
5 Boygenius – The Record (31 Mar, #1, silver)
4 Maisie Peters – The Good Witch (23 June, #1)
3 Freya Ridings – Blood Orange (28 Apr, #7)
2 Lana Del Rey – Did You Know That There's A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd (24 Mar, #1, gold)
1 Olivia Rodrigo – Guts (8 Sep, #1, gold)
For 2024, the new Green Day album came out today, and the debut from NewDad is out next Friday, followed by the debut album from the much-hyped The Last Dinner Party on 2 February and the new Ariana Grande album on 8 March. Then on 22 March I’m looking forward to the new album from The Staves (my first trip of 2024 to buy a new album on CD on release day), with Waxahatchee on the same day and Ride on 29 March.
New albums are also expected from Bat For Lashes, Coldplay, Dua Lipa, Paul Weller, Sam Fender, and Sia, while in the “potential” new album category are Haim, London Grammar, Lorde, Rihanna, and U2; Radiohead’s legion of fans on PB may be disappointed to know that I have downgraded them to “longshot” for 2024 but a 2025 album could be possible.
Finally, if you’ve made it this far, very best wishes to everyone for the year ahead, with a special mention as always to those who keep the PB show on the road, and best of luck with your betting in 2024. Thanks to Benpointer for running the competition – even though I didn’t take part I’ll plump for Trump to beat Biden and a Labour majority of 50.
I know we've said it many times already, but how could a system which was known to be faulty in 1999 possibly be installed in thousands of post offices, and then any problems with it denied for the next 15 years?
The opposite reason to the NHS spending £10bn on their new computer system, then abandoning the project without ever implementing it.
Did anyone mention Fujitsu?
We even paid them compensation when their NHS system flopped. That's how in hock to them our government has been.
...The Japanese attempt to land on the Moon just 100m from its target is "unprecedented", says Dr Emma Gatti, a former Nasa scientist and editor-in-chief of SpaceWatch Global.
Most spacecraft touch down kilometres away from their intended target, she tells the BBC.
Apollo 11 - the spacecraft that landed the first humans on the moon - landed around 6.5 kilometres from the target, which is "a bit like if you wanted to land in Buckingham Palace and you arrive in Brixton," she says.
She adds that it would be "historic" for Japan - a country much smaller than the United States or China - to join them in becoming only the fifth country to land on the Moon...
Name the countries that have landed on the moon except the us....oh right you cant because it is zero
THe USSR, China and India. All have made successful soft moon landings.
With humans which was what was specified
No it wasn't. The Apollo 11 example was just given as it is the most famous of all moon landings. The comment was concerning moon landings. Hence the fact it even says explicitely "the fifth country to land on the Moon". It is not our fault you are incapbale of basic comprehension.
By that definition beagle was a mars landing....it wasnt it was we crashed something into mars
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
So my point stands you count a brick hitting a celestial object as a landing Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Did you read what I wrote? It landed successfully, it didn't crash.
It still isnt to most people a mars landing....go ask your friends have we landed on mars most will say no we just sent some probes because landing involves humans
Yet I have a page here full of "Mars landings".
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If no people it is a probe, not a landing....no people no landing. No one cares what nasa calls it. There understanding is boots on the ground....no one believes we have landed on mars.
Just as a matter of interest, when drones return to airbases, and their wheels touchdown on the runway, what word am I supposed to use other than "landing"?
So if we nuke russia can we call it a russian landing?
If the Trident missiles land, something has gone seriously wrong.
Ah, another nuclear-war-phobic bigot. :-)
Ah yes, the TWERPs. Tritium warhead exclusionary radical peacenik
Deuterium, shirley?
The primary (assuming a modern multistager - aka Hydrogen Bomb) will be fusion booster with some Tritium in the middle of the pit.
The secondary contain lithium deutiride. Generally infused (porous ceramic) more tritium. In the centre of the secondary is another fission bomb (aka the Sparkplug) which is also Tritium boosted.
The lithium, under neutron bombardment, will turn into more tritium. Which kicks up the fusion yield and in turn produces even more neutrons…
All this is because tritium fuses more easily than deuterium.
Ah, thanks. But I could have sworn Edward Teller is portrayed as mentioning deuterium in "Oppenheimer".
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
Six likes.
Jesus Christ.
Seven now. Britain has a long tradition of radicalism. For every foppish Cavalier there is a russet coated Roundhead.
So I ended up with 21 albums released last year, ahead of the 15 from 2022 but well behind 2021’s record haul of 32. Once again male vocals are very much in the minority, with only three of the 2023 albums featuring them predominantly. All the albums below are in my Spotify “album collection” apart from Blur and Lana Del Rey being on CD, which were acquired on release day.
Positions 21 to 11 are as follows, starting with 21:
Arlo Parks, Paramore, Ellie Goulding, Depeche Mode, Mitski, Holly Humberstone, PJ Harvey, Everything But The Girl, The Japanese House, Molly Burch, with OMD in 11th place.
Positions 10 to 1 (release date, UK album chart position, UK sales certification if any):
10 Blur - The Ballad Of Darren (21 July, #1, silver)
9 Jorja Smith – Falling Or Flying (29 Sep, #3)
8 Jessie Ware – That! Feels Good! (28 Apr, #3)
7 Gabrielle Aplin – Phosphorescent (6 Jan, #15)
6 Slowdive – Everything Is Alive (1 Sep, #6)
5 Boygenius – The Record (31 Mar, #1, silver)
4 Maisie Peters – The Good Witch (23 June, #1)
3 Freya Ridings – Blood Orange (28 Apr, #7)
2 Lana Del Rey – Did You Know That There's A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd (24 Mar, #1, gold)
1 Olivia Rodrigo – Guts (8 Sep, #1, gold)
For 2024, the new Green Day album came out today, and the debut from NewDad is out next Friday, followed by the debut album from the much-hyped The Last Dinner Party on 2 February and the new Ariana Grande album on 8 March. Then on 22 March I’m looking forward to the new album from The Staves (my first trip of 2024 to buy a new album on CD on release day), with Waxahatchee on the same day and Ride on 29 March.
New albums are also expected from Bat For Lashes, Coldplay, Dua Lipa, Paul Weller, Sam Fender, and Sia, while in the “potential” new album category are Haim, London Grammar, Lorde, Rihanna, and U2; Radiohead’s legion of fans on PB may be disappointed to know that I have downgraded them to “longshot” for 2024 but a 2025 album could be possible.
Finally, if you’ve made it this far, very best wishes to everyone for the year ahead, with a special mention as always to those who keep the PB show on the road, and best of luck with your betting in 2024. Thanks to Benpointer for running the competition – even though I didn’t take part I’ll plump for Trump to beat Biden and a Labour majority of 50.
Many thanks,
DC
I recognise your passion for new music is sincere, and you really love and enjoy exploring new albums.
However, in all honesty, are any of them actually any good? Or is this the music equivalent of poncey metro art galleries that, if you're in the in-crowd, you know you're supposed to like?
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
Murdoch hedging his bets? Times goes lightly for Starmer. The Sun goes in with its boots on for Sunak.
Papers catering to their readership I think. Your average Times reader is more liberal and has almost certainly lost patience with the Tories. The Sun's remaining readership are possibly one of the few segments of the electorate still pro-Tory.
Plus don't underestimate embarrassment as a factor. The Sun went all in on the Tories. To the extent their political editor was once a prominent heavily connect activist. It would be profoundly embarrassing to get into bed with Labour now. Much easier for The Times to emphasise its more Labour-friendly side.
I think The Sun might genuinely sit on the fence for this one. Say they don’t really like any of them, Sunak isn’t populist enough, and then claim bragging rights that they weren’t strictly backing the losing team when the Tories lose.
I expect The Sun and The Mail to fully hitch themselves to the populist right after the GE (to the extent elements of them at not there already).
I think the likeliest is grudging support. They'll say he's Sunak's a bit shit but that Starmer will put Brexit at risk and put a migrant in every home.
Alternatively, a large part of the problem for the Conservatives is unfixable under any leader.
But that Corbyn comparison ought to terrify them.
And Johnson's ratings are almost identical to Corbin's by the end.
At least no-one in Labour is saying that Corbyn wasn't such a bad campaigner; let's give him another try...
Or, someone probably is, but no-one is listening
The difference is that Boris was surrounded by scandal at the time of those ratings, the others were just doing their job
With Corbyn aren't we forgetting the antisemitism scandal? He was never particularly popular but along with his dire Skripals stuff it fatally holed perceptions of him and reduced what chance he had of convincing people he wasn't quite the far left crank opponents said of him. Not that he'd have won but 2019 might have been more like 2017.
I think Salisbury hurt him a lot. I thought so at the time. "Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy", I remember thinking, when he started digging that hole for himself. There was no upside there whatsoever. It handed an arsenal of ammo to all those pushing the 'dislikes his own country' line.
Corbyn is a case study on why good campaigners often make terrible politicians. Though his behaviour on Salisbury was inexplicable. I kind of get* why he didn't take action on antisemitism, as I'm certain he doesn't consider himself to be antisemitic at all, and in his mind that means that the accusations were just wrong. But Salisbury is pretty open-and-shut - and was not only an assassination attempt, but the recklessness of it resulted in the death of an innocent, as well as serious health consequences to boot.
*as in, I don't agree with him, but I understand his behaviour - unlike his Salisbury response.
Er, it’s quite obvious
Corbyn hates Britain and the west. He hates white British people apart from the few solid lefties he can rely on as friends. He thinks we are all gammony imperialists and colonialists and slavishly united with the hated America and Israel. Especially people who live in Salisbury. That’s Tory central
I genuinely think he doesn’t give a fuck if white British people die as long as the murderers are some anti western type. Muslims, Russians, Chinese, the IRA, Boko Haram, doesn’t matter, he approves of anyone who opposes “us”
That is the mindset of Jeremy Corbyn. Soaked in adolescent lefty bigotry and too stupid to grow up
You're missing some of the complexity here. Actually there's also something quintessentially English about Corbyn. His allotment. His fondness for making jam. His deep love of London. His support of Arsenal. His unerring politeness (usually) and his reluctance to 'personalise' politics (reminiscent of Tony Benn's 'policies not personalities' mantra). And, even his penchant for attending marches for every popular left-wing cause is a fine English tradition for those on the left. In conclusion, he's not atypical of many left-wing English gentlemen of a certain age influenced by the postwar socialist movement.
So you're wrong. He loves his country. He just has a very different vision of it from you. And no, I'm not a fan of his.
Six likes.
Jesus Christ.
Why? Seems logical to me. Like you I am no fan of Corbyn (to put it mildly), that doesn't mean he doesn't love his country even if you (like me) believe he is completely deluded in his politics and actually dangerous.The two positions are not incompatible.
How would a full on proper right wing Farage-led Tory party perform?
if they got serious about immigration, and culture wars, combined with some rank populism about the health service, British biscuits, gardening, lovely old ladies, and the army, I reckon they could squeak a narrow majority in 2028 - EXCEPT that Farage will be 64 by then. Too old?
Hmmm
It would heavily depend on whether those themes you mention - which are largely boomer themes - get handed down to the next generation of elderly voters which by then will include a large chunk of GenX.
European populism is less nostalgic than our current Dad's Army version. It's more direct culture war - immigration, fear of Islam, and whatever cultural mores work in that country (gender politics, religion, anti-environmentalism etc). I think Farage and the Tories would need to wean themselves off the grumpy old man down pub voter and on to something younger and harder edged. Braverman potentially shows the way.
Yes I agree. They need to copy Le Pen in the way she rejuvenated the French right
The young are voting Le Pen in extraordinary numbers
There's a basic difference between us and continental Europe though in that the struggles Western nations are facing are, there, associated with a failed social democratic establishment.
Here younger people associate them with with a failure of a right that has been in power for 14 years and got policies through that at one point were beyond its wildest dreams but are seen as having failed even on their own terms.
So people kicking out at that here trend left. There they trend right.
Doubling down on that with something edgier is therefore unlikely to help. At least for now. In 10-15 years if we're still in a funk that may change. For the moment though people like Braverman, Farage re seen as part of, perhaps a lot of, the problem.
But this is a misdiagnosis. We might have had a right wing government on paper, but in practice we have been at the extreme end of an experiment in governing by a dehumanised system of 'rights'. The Tories have failed completely, not because they were too right wing but because they didn't challenge the framework that had been entrenched under Tony Blair.
There was a good example of the pathologies of the system yesterday where someone documented his attempts to track down his mother after she was admitted to hospital and was met with Kafkaesque obstruction.
The West faces two major issues that significantly impact the path of economic growth.
The first is demographics. We have more and more old people, and they take up an increasing share of government spending. Look at the percentage of GDP that is spent on social care plus health plus pensions and compare now to 1980. And we know this is only going to rise. More and more of peoples' income is going to be spent on looking after old people, and that's true irrespective of who the government is.
The second is the rise of developing economies. The reality is that people in China, India, Vietnam and the like are willing to work for less than Brits. And even if that had absolutely no impact on British exports (which is optimistic), it still means there is more competition for commodities. In the past, the developed world was the dominant purchaser of oil, natural gas, pork and the like. That's simply not true anymore. And that means that the price we're going to be paying for those imports is going to be higher.
That may all be true but it's orthogonal to the question of whether the UK government has been too right wing or not.
Comments
That sounds like an oxymoron, William.
I do. Made me chuckle, that did.
"The prospect has driven some people to the brink of virtue-signalling derangement."
"No 10’s scientific advisers warned that the government should tell people not to shake hands on the same day that Boris Johnson boasted about doing so “with everybody” at a hospital where there were confirmed coronavirus patients."
I've supplied you with a reference to show the definition of the phrase, and can supply more if you wish (to the great delight of others, I imagine). I have yet to find one which defines "moon landing" exclusively referring to manned landings. What would an unmanned moon landing even be called?
Keir Starmer: my plans to reform our broken NHS
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a7a7517f-d956-4f89-8d51-8fbe93210131?shareToken=95e2d5166826d9c220686c0512fad25e
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_landing
The lander appears to have successfully landed but not deployed all of its power and communications panels.
In any case an uncontrolled landing is still a landing.
But MJW's point was that the major benficiaries of the malaise are left wing parties in the UK because most people see the Conservative Party as right of center.
And he's correct. Most people do see the Conservative Party as right of center. Now you - and @Mortimer - have a different view, and that's fine.
But I think even you would agree that a poll in the UK asking "do you think the Conservative Party is right or left wing" would come back overwhelmingly with right wing.
And people will react against the perceived hue of the government.
Most people arent going to if you ask people have we landed on mars the answer will be mostly no as no humans
Which is fine of and in itself. It is imperfect (though better than what anyone else has come up with to date).
The problem comes because that distate often ends up in a place where you end up excusing or siding with those who are its enemies - even if they are vile and should be antithetical to anyone on the left.
In the case of the Skripals it led to being very weird about it because admitting what Putin is and how dangerous that is would mean admitting the flaws in his own worldview and that our system is worth defending and you need to be tougher on defence than he finds at all comfortable. In the case of antisemitism over the years it led to him excusing the inexcusable because an admission that some of those who are anti-Israel and anti-west are so because they believe genuinely repulsive things, would again lend a certain legitimacy to Israel and its allies he is loathe to give.
In your world, what is it called when a lunar lander lands on the Moon?
If a plane lands on auto pilot or by remote control by your definition if it has passengers onboard it has landed but if it doesn't it hasn't. Out of interest in the latter case was has it actually done? What word would you use?
No one cares what astronomers or others of their ilk call their probes hitting their target
So - of course unmanned landings count, otherwise the article and quote in question wouldn’t even exist, because they’d not be discussing the challenges facing the unmanned lander.
I too have a plan to reform our broken NHS (without photo-op with jacket off and sleeves rolled up à la Boris and now Keir, as if ready to deliver a baby in the hospital car park).
Yesterday I was in hospital for a prod and probe and the student nurse could not find some tape so had to ask Sister where it was kept. We often see the same thing with new doctors in fly-on-the-wall documentaries. So my plan is: label the sodding cupboards.
For surface destruction, you want an airburst.
For buried targets (silos) you want to couple the shockwave to the ground. A single salvage fuse* can do that.
For deep buried installations you want actual earth penetration. Which you (probably) can’t do with an ICBM warhead. It’s going too fast. Hence a mission for bombers.
*salvage fuse was a British idea. When the weapon actually hits the ground, the external shell of the weapon contains two layers of metal. When they are smashed into each other, this create a short circuit and fires the weapon. Which completes detonation in a few microseconds. Long before the weapon starts to be damaged by hitting the ground at Mach 15+. The salvage fuse got its name from it second function - on approach to the target, the safeties disconnect. So if the weapon is hit by defences in last few thousand feet of its journey it detonates.
Because climbing down becomes somewhere between impossible and extremely embarrassing.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68035314
"Japan’s Slim spacecraft lands on moon but struggles to generate power"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/jan/19/japan-slim-spacecraft-lands-on-moon-but-struggles-to-generate-power
"Touchdown! Japan lands on the moon - but mission control struggles to make contact with the lander"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12983635/Japan-moon-landing-Watch-LIVE-nation-attempts-fifth-successfully-land-lunar-surface.html
It's even in the Mail's URL. Couldn't be arsed to check the Sun, etc.. you get the point.
Man DeLorean!
I have experienced the NHS and A & E (twice) over the last 4 months here in Wales and there are huge problems, but to be fair each and every nurse, specialist nurse, doctor and consultant has been wonderful
I have no idea how or even when it will improve despite politicians promises
So just dropping from the sky is not a landing.
Controlled soft (and because I can't think of another word) landing is a landing.
I mean we are talking the bleeding obvious here.
Has that boat landed?
That is, every minute, solar panels capable of generating one MW are being deployed, somewhere in the world.
That sounds insanely fast to me - it's 1-1.5GW per day.
The left does hold significant sway culturally, but fundamentally we live in a country that's been largely defined by Tory governments. Which of course doesn't mean they've been successful in their aims. But they are the ones who have to carry the can in public perceptions.
That's not to say the right's policies caused all our problems but fundamentally if those who are in their 20s and 30s and feel poorer than their parents they are more likely to blame those who have been in power most of the time and enacted their projects.
Compare that to France where a political elite has endlessly failed to enact social and labour market reform such that many younger people feel shut out of prosperity and it's easy to see why the backlash trends right, whereas here it trends left.
Same way the Rees-Moggs of the world can sonehow be simultaneously superficially civil yet also breathtakingly rude.
It's such a shame they didn't take the same path to liberal democracy as most other countries did, when they could.
They were starting to edge towards it (a bit) in the 1900s.
The secondary contain lithium deutiride. Generally infused (porous ceramic) more tritium. In the centre of the secondary is another fission bomb (aka the Sparkplug) which is also Tritium boosted.
The lithium, under neutron bombardment, will turn into more tritium. Which kicks up the fusion yield and in turn produces even more neutrons…
All this is because tritium fuses more easily than deuterium.
This would be capacity, not actual generation. Global electric generation capacity is apparently 8,800gw. So that’s about 5% of generation capacity per year. A lot, but not unimaginable.
Plus don't underestimate embarrassment as a factor. The Sun went all in on the Tories. To the extent their political editor was once a prominent heavily connect activist. It would be profoundly embarrassing to get into bed with Labour now. Much easier for The Times to emphasise its more Labour-friendly side.
"I told you once..."
"No you didn't!"
"Yes I did!"
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/
I was reading his blog for years, but dropped off a little the last few years. Recently my son's been fascinated by the Herculaneum scrolls, and it turned out that Handmer's been heavily involved in decoding them...
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/11/10/time-to-read-all-the-scrolls/
https://www.npr.org/2017/04/24/525413427/for-drone-pilots-warfare-may-be-remote-but-the-trauma-is-real
Evening all - as promised, if a bit later than expected, below is the list of 2024 elections (obviously we’ve already had Taiwan and Iowa) that I’ll be keeping an eye on, plus in Part 2, my 2023 album rankings and a quick look ahead to 2024 releases.
2024 elections
23 January – New Hampshire primary
14 February – Indonesia presidential (26 June second round if needed)
15 February – Kingswood and Wellingborough by-elections
5 March – Super Tuesday primaries
10 March – Portugal
15-17 March – Russia presidential
April-May – India
2 May – UK local elections, including London Mayor & Assembly
May – South Africa (could be as late as August)
2 June – Mexico presidential
6-9 June – Euro-elections
9 June – Belgium
5 November – US presidential, 1/3 Senate, House, 11 governors
November – Romania presidential (second round Nov/Dec if needed)
TBC – Austria (by autumn)
TBC – UK general election
TBC – Rochdale by-election
Government formation pending – Netherlands
That’s everything I can think of but I’m sure Stodge will have one or two others! 😊
The same is likely in reverse with those under 40. If the country is in a mess you remember back to the 90s and 2000s as a better time and ascribe part of that to us having a Labour government and being in the EU.
Nostalgia is a profound political force.
I expect The Sun and The Mail to fully hitch themselves to the populist right after the GE (to the extent elements of them at not there already).
Jesus Christ.
2023 best albums and 2024 preview
So I ended up with 21 albums released last year, ahead of the 15 from 2022 but well behind 2021’s record haul of 32. Once again male vocals are very much in the minority, with only three of the 2023 albums featuring them predominantly. All the albums below are in my Spotify “album collection” apart from Blur and Lana Del Rey being on CD, which were acquired on release day.
Positions 21 to 11 are as follows, starting with 21:
Arlo Parks, Paramore, Ellie Goulding, Depeche Mode, Mitski, Holly Humberstone, PJ Harvey, Everything But The Girl, The Japanese House, Molly Burch, with OMD in 11th place.
Positions 10 to 1 (release date, UK album chart position, UK sales certification if any):
10 Blur - The Ballad Of Darren (21 July, #1, silver)
9 Jorja Smith – Falling Or Flying (29 Sep, #3)
8 Jessie Ware – That! Feels Good! (28 Apr, #3)
7 Gabrielle Aplin – Phosphorescent (6 Jan, #15)
6 Slowdive – Everything Is Alive (1 Sep, #6)
5 Boygenius – The Record (31 Mar, #1, silver)
4 Maisie Peters – The Good Witch (23 June, #1)
3 Freya Ridings – Blood Orange (28 Apr, #7)
2 Lana Del Rey – Did You Know That There's A Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd (24 Mar, #1, gold)
1 Olivia Rodrigo – Guts (8 Sep, #1, gold)
For 2024, the new Green Day album came out today, and the debut from NewDad is out next Friday, followed by the debut album from the much-hyped The Last Dinner Party on 2 February and the new Ariana Grande album on 8 March. Then on 22 March I’m looking forward to the new album from The Staves (my first trip of 2024 to buy a new album on CD on release day), with Waxahatchee on the same day and Ride on 29 March.
New albums are also expected from Bat For Lashes, Coldplay, Dua Lipa, Paul Weller, Sam Fender, and Sia, while in the “potential” new album category are Haim, London Grammar, Lorde, Rihanna, and U2; Radiohead’s legion of fans on PB may be disappointed to know that I have downgraded them to “longshot” for 2024 but a 2025 album could be possible.
Finally, if you’ve made it this far, very best wishes to everyone for the year ahead, with a special mention as always to those who keep the PB show on the road, and best of luck with your betting in 2024. Thanks to Benpointer for running the competition – even though I didn’t take part I’ll plump for Trump to beat Biden and a Labour majority of 50.
Many thanks,
DC
We even paid them compensation when their NHS system flopped. That's how in hock to them our government has been.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464002
However, in all honesty, are any of them actually any good? Or is this the music equivalent of poncey metro art galleries that, if you're in the in-crowd, you know you're supposed to like?