Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.
I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country. In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.
That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.
The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.
It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change (and reverse) so radically.
Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.
I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country. In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.
That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.
The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.
It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.
Well the country is getting balkanized politically, once past strongholds are now falling to insurgent parties.
Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox reported profits of $999m (£624m) in the third quarter, buoyed by strong earnings in its film and cable television units. The company also said revenue rose to $8.42bn, a 17% increase from the same period last year.
PS Sorry, Tim, just noticed you said you loved it - might have been a bit more tactful if I'd seen that.
No problem Nick. Many of these ads are just awful - at least this one was humorous. Remember I've been exposed to political ads for 35 years, so my terms of reference are probably different to yours. UK PPBs don't do it for me.
If she was castrating cats I could understand your outrage :-)
No surprise - some people on Newsnight have been offended by the naming of the 16 year old murderer yesterday.
I must say I'm troubled by this. It's undoubtedly a matter where the public are interested. But he's a young boy and clearly severely disturbed, and the release of his name and photo is not going to do anything to help start the long process of rehabilitating him.
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.
I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country. In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.
That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.
The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.
It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.
Well the country is getting balkanized politically, once past strongholds are now falling to insurgent parties.
In a handful of places, so far.
There has been a process of divergence and concentration of the vote going on for 60 years, producing the "Labour North" and "Tory South", resulting in a halving in the number of marginal seats (one of the components, incidentally, of the increased chance of NOM.) I see no sign of that reversing.
Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox reported profits of $999m (£624m) in the third quarter, buoyed by strong earnings in its film and cable television units. The company also said revenue rose to $8.42bn, a 17% increase from the same period last year.
There are a few things certain in this world and one of them is that old Rupert always has the last laugh.
His criminal employees hacking the phones of dead children was a right hoot.
I get the impression you aren't keen on Murdoch or his empire?
Labour supporters have rather gone off Mr Murdoch, since he stopped supporting Labour. I suppose it's understandable, if a touch ungrateful for all his help over the years.
Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.
I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country. In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.
That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.
The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.
It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.
Well the country is getting balkanized politically, once past strongholds are now falling to insurgent parties.
In a handful of places, so far.
There has been a process of divergence and concentration of the vote going on for 70 years, producing the "Labour North" and "Tory South", resulting in a halving in the number of marginal seats (one of the components, incidentally, of the increased chance of NOM.) I see no sign of that reversing.
Well the Labour North and the Tory South is not what it used to be with UKIP and the SNP anymore.
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
The Democrats are currently 36 to keep control of the Senate with Betfair.
Does anyone on PB think they might do it?
Caution - that is NOT a market on whether they keep controlk of the Senate, it's a market about whether they end up with a majority of seats excluding independents who caucus with them (currently two).
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox reported profits of $999m (£624m) in the third quarter, buoyed by strong earnings in its film and cable television units. The company also said revenue rose to $8.42bn, a 17% increase from the same period last year.
There are a few things certain in this world and one of them is that old Rupert always has the last laugh.
His criminal employees hacking the phones of dead children was a right hoot.
I get the impression you aren't keen on Murdoch or his empire?
Labour supporters have rather gone off Mr Murdoch, since he stopped supporting Labour. I suppose it's understandable, if a touch ungrateful for all his help over the years.
And Conservative supporters have continued to back him no matter how bad the crimes of his employees , no doubt hoping that support will be paid back in the future .
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
If the Republicans take the Senate they ARE changing the government
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
What a disgusting advert. If she was running against Count Dracula I'd vote the vampire ticket.
Aw c'mon Nick - she grew up castrating hogs so she knows how to cut pork - great line.
It's a great ad. I've seen compilations of the best ads of the cycle and this one is stand-out excellent.
You're lucky - I've had to sit through them all, one at a time. If there's a runoff I'll have 2 more months of it.
Don't forget your homburg!!! :-)
Yes it must be terrible to put up with these wall-to-wall. I can't remember where I saw the compilation. Over at Hotair maybe? Anyway, I got 10 minutes of the best ones; you got 6 months of the worst. My genuine sympathy!
Homburg already set at a jaunty angle. Carnation firmly in lapel. All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Perhaps Ed Miliband and Ed Balls will go to war over broadband roll out?
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.
You might want to tether your cocoanuts on this one for a minute.
She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.
IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
Perhaps on Friday we might expect news of Vince Cable backstabbing Nick Clegg in some bitter dispute over free wifi in public libraries
The Democrats are currently 36 to keep control of the Senate with Betfair.
Does anyone on PB think they might do it?
Caution - that is NOT a market on whether they keep controlk of the Senate, it's a market about whether they end up with a majority of seats excluding independents who caucus with them (currently two).
So, no, they won't do it. It's a mug's bet.
Okay, thanks. I've put £2 on them anyway just in case something strange happens.
PS Sorry, Tim, just noticed you said you loved it - might have been a bit more tactful if I'd seen that.
No problem Nick. Many of these ads are just awful - at least this one was humorous. Remember I've been exposed to political ads for 35 years, so my terms of reference are probably different to yours. UK PPBs don't do it for me.
If she was castrating cats I could understand your outrage :-)
What a disgusting advert. If she was running against Count Dracula I'd vote the vampire ticket.
Aw c'mon Nick - she grew up castrating hogs so she knows how to cut pork - great line.
It's a great ad. I've seen compilations of the best ads of the cycle and this one is stand-out excellent.
You're lucky - I've had to sit through them all, one at a time. If there's a runoff I'll have 2 more months of it.
Don't forget your homburg!!! :-)
Yes it must be terrible to put up with these wall-to-wall. I can't remember where I saw the compilation. Over at Hotair maybe? Anyway, I got 10 minutes of the best ones; you got 6 months of the worst. My genuine sympathy!
Homburg already set at a jaunty angle. Carnation firmly in lapel. All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up
They had a quick shot of the room on Fox. They're all either bald old or fat. You must have been in the bathroom.
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
I've read the piece.
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers or on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
I've read the piece.
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.
I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.
"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"
He also speaks sense on what the Republicans need to do to broaden their appeal. He's gone from zero to hero fast.
Too fast, I say. He needs to make a serious pitch to California, it's in the middle of an existential crisis and is looking for a savior with a water plan. If he makes a serious proposal to save California from becoming a desert that we will become President alright, using the same pre-1992 strategy that gave Republicans the white house.
"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"
He also speaks sense on what the Republicans need to do to broaden their appeal. He's gone from zero to hero fast.
Too fast, I say. He needs to make a serious pitch to California, it's in the middle of an existential crisis and is looking for a savior with a water plan. If he makes a serious proposal to save California from becoming a desert that we will become President alright, using the same pre-1992 strategy that gave Republicans the white house.
I'm not sure the California water problem is fixable long term
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
I've read the piece.
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.
I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.
It is the rather public way she's gone about it that is raising suspicions.
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
I've read the piece.
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.
I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.
Either May is trying to have a Euro-sausage moment, using something trivial to up her political stock, however she is taking the unpopular side of the issue. Or simply she is bonkers.
Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.
I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country. In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.
That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.
The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.
It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.
Well the country is getting balkanized politically, once past strongholds are now falling to insurgent parties.
In a handful of places, so far.
There has been a process of divergence and concentration of the vote going on for 70 years, producing the "Labour North" and "Tory South", resulting in a halving in the number of marginal seats (one of the components, incidentally, of the increased chance of NOM.) I see no sign of that reversing.
Well the Labour North and the Tory South is not what it used to be with UKIP and the SNP anymore.
We will have to see how well these parties perform, but the idea they will produce more Lab-Con marginals is baseless. The example of the LibDems 1974 onwards is it will produce even fewer...
The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting
I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain? Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.
I've read the piece.
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.
I seem to have heard something to the effect that the US security agencies are hoping mad with people like Apple for fiendishly encripting their phones - much to the joy of terrorists whose sole purpose is to kill Apple's customers.
"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"
He also speaks sense on what the Republicans need to do to broaden their appeal. He's gone from zero to hero fast.
Too fast, I say. He needs to make a serious pitch to California, it's in the middle of an existential crisis and is looking for a savior with a water plan. If he makes a serious proposal to save California from becoming a desert that we will become President alright, using the same pre-1992 strategy that gave Republicans the white house.
I'm not sure the California water problem is fixable long term
I have a plan, I developed it for the Med 9 years ago, it could work for California.
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.
You might want to tether your cocoanuts on this one for a minute.
She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.
IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'
The fact that she (and he) are selflessly working for the party to minimise the defeat (if there is one) ie minimise the dead weighr of Obama, is what will get her the nomination.
@Flightpath Encryption of data is wrong? How very quaint.
I think I could argue that the ability to garner information on terroists is slightly less damaging than blowing you and others among our fellow citizens to bits.
Closing the polls at 6pm in Kentucky doesn't give people much chance to vote after work. Maybe that's the point.
They open at 6am instead of the usual 7am
That's okay for early birds. Maybe it's to penalise those who get up at the last minute, go to work, and then want to vote after work. Not possible in Kentucky it seems.
If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important. As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism. If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.
You might want to tether your cocoanuts on this one for a minute.
She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.
IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'
The fact that she (and he) are selflessly working for the party to minimise the defeat (if there is one) ie minimise the dead weighr of Obama, is what will get her the nomination.
So Romney will get the Republican nomination, by the same logic.
You may well be right, but I'm not sure it's as automatic as you think.
Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.
Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.
I noticed this when I upgrade my iPhone 4S to the new OS. Luckily I had already ordered a 6 by this point (and I'm very happy with it so far).
I'm a bit puritanical with computing devices. When I buy one I get the best available, but then I expect to be able to carry on using it for at least 5 years. My desktop computer was top of the range, but it's now 10 years old. Still works pretty well.
@Flightpath If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)
Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.
Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.
I noticed this when I upgrade my iPhone 4S to the new OS. Luckily I had already ordered a 6 by this point (and I'm very happy with it so far).
I'm a bit puritanical with computing devices. When I buy one I get the best available, but then I expect to be able to carry on using it for at least 5 years. My desktop computer was top of the range, but it's now 10 years old. Still works pretty well.
I should add that it was almost becoming unusable about six months ago, but fibre optic broadband gave it a new lease of life.
@Flightpath If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)
That's all fine and dandy, but what about those who are less keen than you to be blown up, or to have to face the horror of their wives or children being blown up?
And, get real. Can you really not see the difference between some computer in GCHQ scanning your email headers or phone records, and a terrorist wanting to blow you up?
Kentucky - opinion of Grimes Fave 45% unfave 52% opinion of McConnell - exactly the same
Importance of control of Senate 88% yes
You are watching CNN too ha?
Nope - Fox News. I need numbers not flashy screens and John King and the dreadful Wolf Blitzer. Fox leaves the crawler on during commercials - not sure if CNN does. CNN gets lousy ratings for a reason. MsNBC exists only to make CNN look good :-)
Just checked - CNN puts national poll numbers up during breaks.
@Richard_Nabavi You get real. The reason we are supposed to be fighting terrorism is to protect our freedoms. One of which is the right to privacy. What else would you give up to stop the nasty bogeymen?
Kentucky - opinion of Grimes Fave 45% unfave 52% opinion of McConnell - exactly the same
Importance of control of Senate 88% yes
You are watching CNN too ha?
Nope - Fox News. I need numbers not flashy screens and John Roberts. Fox leaves the crawler on during commercials - not sure if CNN does. CNN gets lousy ratings for a reason. MsNBC exists only to make CNN look good :-)
CNN is very good at election coverage, they broadcast it like it's a natural disaster.
There are 2 important votes running concurrently in Florida and Washington-DC71 Campaign-on cannabis.Even in the red states the tide is turning.Both GOP and blues are turning both ways on the issue as,on the one hand,to one degree or another they are both funded by Big Pharma and Big Alcohol,yet,on the other,the voters are way ahead of the politicians so,unbelievably,the Californian GOP party is behind the full legalisation election of 2016.If California goes legit,the dam breaks for the rest.There's the game-changer politically. Cannabis politics could determine the next POTUS.
@Flightpath If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)
That's all fine and dandy, but what about those who are less keen than you to be blown up, or to have to face the horror of their wives or children being blown up?
And, get real. Can you really not see the difference between some computer in GCHQ scanning your email headers or phone records, and a terrorist wanting to blow you up?
People are touchy about their privacy, Richard.
I'm with you on this one, having long accepted that part of the price we pay for living in a modern high-tec world is that we not only can be spied upon, we have to be. It stopped bothering me when I realised how little privacy I actually needed, and how little I actually cared about it. For example, I simply assume that all my telecoms can be monitored, and make sure nothing appears in them that would not bear the light of day.
@Richard_Nabavi You get real. The reason we are supposed to be fighting terrorism is to protect our freedoms. One of which is the right to privacy. What else would you give up to stop the nasty bogeymen?
You have a right to privacy, within the law. It's not unconditional; for example, you can't keep your financial affairs private from the taxman, or refuse to fill in a census form.
If you really want to keep your communications private, there's a very simple way. Don't use email, don't use mobile phones, switch off GPS, and don't use Facebook.
There are 2 important votes running concurrently in Florida and Washington-DC71 Campaign-on cannabis.Even in the red states the tide is turning.Both GOP and blues are turning both ways on the issue as,on the one hand,to one degree or another they are both funded by Big Pharma and Big Alcohol,yet,on the other,the voters are way ahead of the politicians so,unbelievably,the Californian GOP party is behind the full legalisation election of 2016.If California goes legit,the dam breaks for the rest.There's the game-changer politically. Cannabis politics could determine the next POTUS.
When voting for presidents, how highly do people put drug legalisation in their reasons for choosing who to vote for? I don't imagine it is that high!
Kentucky - opinion of Grimes Fave 45% unfave 52% opinion of McConnell - exactly the same
Importance of control of Senate 88% yes
You are watching CNN too ha?
Nope - Fox News. I need numbers not flashy screens and John Roberts. Fox leaves the crawler on during commercials - not sure if CNN does. CNN gets lousy ratings for a reason. MsNBC exists only to make CNN look good :-)
CNN is very good at election coverage, they broadcast it like it's a natural disaster.
I have Fox and CNN side by side. Fox is quicker and they give more info.
If the Democrats lose - to CNN it will be a natural disaster.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB 5m5 minutes ago
This looks fun. 6 months to GE15 and Tory leadership wars pic.twitter.com/8sP8z7qOMa
Or she's preparing for a possible leadership race should Cameron lose a no confidence vote after Rochester.
Lab 337
Con 269
Lib 16
Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Majority 24
But that adds up to 622 - 23 for NI, SNP, Gr, UKIP
If she was castrating cats I could understand your outrage :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW71a6mnGjA
There has been a process of divergence and concentration of the vote going on for 60 years, producing the "Labour North" and "Tory South", resulting in a halving in the number of marginal seats (one of the components, incidentally, of the increased chance of NOM.) I see no sign of that reversing.
Don't forget your homburg!!! :-)
EU auditors refuse to sign off more than £100billion of its own spending
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html
Does anyone on PB think they might do it?
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/market?marketId=1.109528811&eventTypeId=2378961
Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?
So, no, they won't do it. It's a mug's bet.
As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism.
If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.
Homburg already set at a jaunty angle. Carnation firmly in lapel.
All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up
Maybe it's 'cos I grew up on a a farm...
http://online.wsj.com/articles/midterm-elections-2014-rand-paul-is-go-to-republican-for-2014-candidates-1415107374?tesla=y
"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"
She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.
IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'
I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers or on manoeuvres.
She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.
However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.
Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.
She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.
Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.
He and Ted Cruz did lots of campaigning for establishment Republican candidates - a sign the Tea Party war may be over.
I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.
I'm stuck in Manchester for the night and have a train to get at 6.49am tomorrow. Would you recommend a trip to Poptastic?
He needs to make a serious pitch to California, it's in the middle of an existential crisis and is looking for a savior with a water plan.
If he makes a serious proposal to save California from becoming a desert that we will become President alright, using the same pre-1992 strategy that gave Republicans the white house.
Con: Luke Evans
Lab: Gisela Stuart
LD: Lee Dargue
UKIP: Keith Rowe
Greens: Phil Simpson
Big sister is keen to keep watching you.
You can never go wrong in poptastic.
It is so much fun.
In an alternate universe I'm a DJ in poptastic.
Or simply she is bonkers.
I thought it was settled he had to be an MP....or have I missed something?
Btw, check your email. [Diplomacy.]
I'll request a Crystal Swing song on your (and pbc's) behalf. Let's hope I dont get chucked out too early.
"Just a moment...just a moment...'' as HAL would say... yes here it is
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/26/fbi-chief-rips-apple-google-for-adding-unbreakable-encryption-to-their-smart-phones/
Seems to me its a legitimate concern.
I was nearly ejected headfirst from there for suggesting they play Achy Breaky Heart.
at 7.30 ET in NC, OH, WV
Encryption of data is wrong? How very quaint.
Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.
It's why we employ hackers and codebreakers. If encryption didn't evolve, they would be out of a job
You could save your files, and do a "restore system" to remove it?
You may well be right, but I'm not sure it's as automatic as you think.
If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)
opinion of McConnell - exactly the same
Importance of control of Senate 88% yes
And, get real. Can you really not see the difference between some computer in GCHQ scanning your email headers or phone records, and a terrorist wanting to blow you up?
Just checked - CNN puts national poll numbers up during breaks.
You get real. The reason we are supposed to be fighting terrorism is to protect our freedoms.
One of which is the right to privacy.
What else would you give up to stop the nasty bogeymen?
Cannabis politics could determine the next POTUS.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/04/republicans-tipped-to-take-senate-setting-the-stage-for-2016/
I'm with you on this one, having long accepted that part of the price we pay for living in a modern high-tec world is that we not only can be spied upon, we have to be. It stopped bothering me when I realised how little privacy I actually needed, and how little I actually cared about it. For example, I simply assume that all my telecoms can be monitored, and make sure nothing appears in them that would not bear the light of day.
It's no big deal.
If you really want to keep your communications private, there's a very simple way. Don't use email, don't use mobile phones, switch off GPS, and don't use Facebook.
"Cannabis politics could determine the next POTUS"
Will they be able to inhale the next time?
If the Democrats lose - to CNN it will be a natural disaster.