On the Telegraph website they have a map showing the location of the drone strike. A block away is a building marked "ISIS Main HQ". Er, why hasn't that building been flattened?
On the Telegraph website they have a map showing the location of the drone strike. A block away is a building marked "ISIS Main HQ". Er, why hasn't that building been flattened?
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
Sorry to be a pedant, but why would anyone offer that bet?
If given the opportunity, you'd back both horses for as much as possible (proportional stakes) for a guaranteed return. And the bookie/layer would be bankrupt before the starters orders.
I think the Greek people fall into two categories: those with savings, and those without.
Any exit of the Euro would mean a massive devaluation of the Drachma against the Euro. This would be excellent for the have-nots, as it would improve the competitive position of the Greek economy and make holidays much cheaper than they might have been. This would almost certainly flow through into higher employment in relatively short order.
But such a devaluation means dramatically lowering the real value of people's savings. The costs of devaluation are born entirely by savers. (These people complain: hey, I've been thrifty and done what I supposed to do, so why should I be the one to pay?.)
The former group would like to leave the Euro and would be the biggest beneficiaries. The latter group would like to stay in, as it keeps the purchasing power of their savings intact.
Perhaps the best way forward would have been for the first group to recognise that it was the second group that would suffer in the event of exiting the Euro. Perhaps the government could have created some kind of "saving adjusment bond" that paid out 50% of the effective depreciation. Sure, it would have added to Greece's debt, but it would have made Euro exit a lot more palatable to the older group.
Thanks @Cyclefree - that sounds extremely plausible. My friend is from Rhodes - came here to be a nurse (not much to do on Rhodes for the aspirational apparently), and without wishing to be disparaging, her peer group probably fall into the latter category.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
No doubt someone else has said it but it matters not whether Corbyn wants to be PM, he is completely unelectable.
Corbyn will systematically destroy existing Labour structures and replace with like minded extremists , then Labour as we know it will not exist. There are either going to be mass defections or the creation of a new centre party populated by LD's and sensible Labourites.
I feel a modest wager coming on. Mr. Root how about a decent lunch on the fact that there will be no mass defections and now new centre party created in the lifetime of this Parliament?
I agree. I do not expect the Corbyn regime to result in a split. It will end in electoral failure - and the end could come as soon as 2016 if Khan fails to win the London mayoralty and Labour goes backwards in Scotland.
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
Cameron could just about control his bladder
Malky, you've been thrown out of Wetherspoons early for a Friday.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
Sorry to be a pedant, but why would anyone offer that bet?
If given the opportunity, you'd back both horses for as much as possible (proportional stakes) for a guaranteed return. And the bookie/layer would be bankrupt before the starters orders.
Lecturers in finance often offer that bet to illustrate the difference between fear and greed.
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
You would love it. A film about an egotistical, sexist piece of scum who thought the world revolved around their little plot of earth.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
Sorry to be a pedant, but why would anyone offer that bet?
If given the opportunity, you'd back both horses for as much as possible (proportional stakes) for a guaranteed return. And the bookie/layer would be bankrupt before the starters orders.
Lecturers in finance often offer that bet to illustrate the difference between fear and greed.
The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.
This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
You would love it. A film about an egotistical, sexist piece of scum who thought the world revolved around their little plot of earth.
Just to put forward another perspective on Labour entryism - we have gained plenty of new members in our branch since May, more since JC was elected. Number to attend branch meetings - one. Yes, a real takeover by the Trots.
We are currently trying to get the local three-quidders to sign up as full members. Maybe some of them will be ready to man the barricades for the Marxist cause.
So, in summary, and to my disappointment, no signs of a Corbynite takeover. Just business as usual for the 6 to 8 who turn up at branch meetings.
Just to put forward another perspective on Labour entryism - we have gained plenty of new members in our branch since May, more since JC was elected. Number to attend branch meetings - one. Yes, a real takeover by the Trots.
We are currently trying to get the local three-quidders to sign up as full members. Maybe some of them will be ready to man the barricades for the Marxist cause.
So, in summary, and to my disappointment, no signs of a Corbynite takeover. Just business as usual for the 6 to 8 who turn up at branch meetings.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
There is one further point, tangentially relevant to a topic we have been discussing in recent days. Emwazi came to the UK as a refugee from another war in the Middle East, a war where this country was taking action to free his home country, Kuwait, to make it possible for his people to be free again and for his family (as his father has done) go home again.
We may think that giving people refuge should make them grateful. We may think that fighting to rescue their country should make them grateful. But clearly not all do agree or find other views more attractive.
Unless we really deal with the ideology that radicalises young men and women, who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?
"who would bet against some of those being given refuge now turning against their adopted countries in the future?"
it's about 1/100
Some seem to be doing it actually en route to the country. They havent even got there and they are waging a war against them.
I used to do these as a student in Oxford, you got paid real money albeit small amounts.
Some questions would have options straight worse than the others; others would (I assume) effectively test risk appetitite. I guess you could then look at how people's risk appetites vary.
Gambles 5 and 6 produce the best expected returns of £36 each but while number 6 produces the biggest potential win, it also produces the smallest, so could be the worst bet. By contrast, although option 1 has the smallest expected return, it also has the largest guaranteed return.
There isn't a wrong answer for a single-toss game as it depends on how the individual weighs up the relative value of potential win against banked gain.
It would be interesting to see whether the answers would be different if the question was reworded as "you are given £28". Do you (1) not play, (2) play for £4 loss on heads / £8 win on tails, through to (6) play for £26 loss on heads / £42 win on tails.
Surely all that matters is how much you have in the bank? 5 & 6 are the right answers unless you owe Don Corleone £28-£34 which you haven't got
Do you act differently if given £2.80 compared to being given £2.8 million ?
An early probability question asks students which they would back in a two horse race between a horse with three legs (odds 1,000,000/1) and a horse with four legs (odds 1/2). Some students usually put up their hands saying they would back the three-legged horse.
Sorry to be a pedant, but why would anyone offer that bet?
If given the opportunity, you'd back both horses for as much as possible (proportional stakes) for a guaranteed return. And the bookie/layer would be bankrupt before the starters orders.
The logic would work with a proper book as well though, surely? Say 1000/1 for the three-legged horse and 1/100000 for the four-legged. You might still back the triped on a fun bet which you can afford to lose on the grounds that the odd penny in a grand ain't worth a hill of beans whereas however unlikely, the 1000/1 would return something meaningful, if unlikely. But when forced to place a substantial stake, you opt for the safe option.
The interesting scenario (one played out on Deal or No Deal all the time), is when the unlikely option is the value bet and the punter is forced to bet large, so short-term losses can't be overcome by long-term laws of averages.
Yes, that's exactly my view, and I'll tell you why. The Russian campaign fully acknowledges that bombed territory needs to be held by ground forces, and has (undoubtedly for strategic reasons as well as military ones, but it doesn't make them any less right) identified the Syrian Government and army as the only organisation capable of doing that - a widely held belief. As a consequence it is slowly but indisputably liberating territory from Al Nusra, ISIS, and other Islamist groups.
By contrast the US spent 13 months bombing holes in the dessert (and not very many of those - the operational tempo is nothing compared with the Russian campaign) whilst ISIS enjoyed a vast expansion in territory. Its only ground 'allies' were the so-called moderate rebels, who the US avowedly expected to fight both ISIS and the Syrian army. Of course they didn't do this, they attacked the army and worked with Nusra and other terrorist groups.
Your view rather bizarrely appears to be that a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign is a bombing campaign.
How many ground troops have the Russian committed to the battle? Very few. They are using the Syrians and Iranians as proxies.
You could easily argue (although you wouldn't as an anti-US and pro-Putin fool) that the coalition's forces had been reversing the tide of ISIS's gains. ISIS had the inertia. Russia as Johnny-come-lately have been doing a few minor things in comparison.
It's also easy to argue that the coalition's approach has been tempered by the need to try to reduce other deaths. Russia does not have such restrictions.
And your calls of victory for Russia a month or so ago has rather fallen on fallow ground. And that progress is not just being made against ISIS/Al N. You should note where those Russia's contacts are taking place.
Also can you provide evidence for the sortie rates over the last couple of months, ignoring the four hospitals Russia is alleged to have hit? Because the US hitting hospitals is *evil*, Russia hitting the, is fine?
Your view rather bizarrely appears to be that being killed by Assad is 'better' then being killed by ISIS.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
The best way, to me, of dealing with the gambling questioned posed by YouGov is to imagine you were asked it in an interview for a job at a bookmakers.. if you said anything other than 5 or 6, your chances of getting the job would have just got worse
Thanks @Cyclefree - that sounds extremely plausible. My friend is from Rhodes - came here to be a nurse (not much to do on Rhodes for the aspirational apparently), and without wishing to be disparaging, her peer group probably fall into the latter category.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
The problem is that the nature of debt requires losses to occur somewhere.
It's not possible for all Greeks to withdraw their money from the bank, because the bank is just a thin sliver of equity between borrowers and savers.
The most likely way I saw for Greece to be forced from the Euro was a run on its banks, and the government being forced to print Drachma to settle their obligations.
In other words, great if you're the first person out of Pireus Bank with their money. But the 100th person will cause the bank to collapse. That's why any exit from the Euro has to be sudden: you have to announce that - as of tomorrow - the country is not in the Eurozone. (Or more realistically, as of a week Monday, and then you have a week of work to fix everything before the banks reopen.)
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
What's that phrase from the King James bible? "For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Jihadi John did not get the full measure of what he did to those poor hostages. So I understand why this widow feels as she did. But at least he is dead. We are all better off without him.
snip
He's dead and can't butcher any more innocent victims.
Would they rather he was still alive and able to face trial if caught, whilst still chopping heads off?
I've no idea what they think. They have suffered an unimaginable tragedy and I am not going to criticise them for their reaction to what has happened. I think that people want justice, want the wrongdoer to be made to account for what they have done and, maybe, also feel that the wrongdoer's swift death was far more merciful than what he did to the hostages. That must feel - at a visceral level - as if he did not get what he truly deserved.
I hope nonetheless that they eventually can find some sort of peace.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
What did you witness? Please tell us in advance.
Nowhere near as much as Matthew Goodwin but heard plenty and spent lots of time with Nigel. Things were fractious, but no more than the other parties, its a highly charged atmosphere as egos fight for their jobs and futures.
Nigel is very popular within the party, nobody has publically trashed him.
Off topic after reading last nights thread I wanted to post my best wishes for Cyclefree and I hope everything works out well for you.
On topic - Don, I see you will forgive the "youthful political advisor" - what about the numerous controversial comments of the Shad chancellor, Mr Milne and ohh Corbyn hmself?
The Labour party seems to be busy divesting itself of credibility.
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
What did you witness? Please tell us in advance.
Nowhere near as much as Matthew Goodwin but heard plenty and spent lots of time with Nigel. Things were fractious, but no more than the other parties, its a highly charged atmosphere as egos fight for their jobs and futures.
Nigel is very popular within the party, nobody has publically trashed him.
Detail, please.
And how do you know that they were "no more than the other parties" ?
"Party insiders are, meanwhile, braced for a rash of revelations about conflicts at the top of Ukip in a book, being serialised next week, by Matthew Goodwin, the academic who co-wrote Revolt on the Right...
“Goodwin was there throughout the campaign, he saw everything, he was given full access . . . sometimes it wasn’t that pretty,” said one party veteran. “If what was said at the time has made its way into the book there will be some pretty sharp exchanges between Douglas Carswell and other senior party figures.” "
I'm interested to read this to see if it ties in with what I witnessed.
What did you witness? Please tell us in advance.
Nowhere near as much as Matthew Goodwin but heard plenty and spent lots of time with Nigel. Things were fractious, but no more than the other parties, its a highly charged atmosphere as egos fight for their jobs and futures.
Nigel is very popular within the party, nobody has publically trashed him.
Detail, please.
And how do you know that they were "no more than the other parties" ?
Sorry you'll get no detail. Every dressing room and place of work has clashes, its no big deal.
Obviously I don't know the comparison with the other parties, fair point, but I've read accounts and they weren't pretty.
I'm sure if Ukip could wind back the clock to January they'd do things differently, but that's hardly a revelation.
My monitor's been on the blink (a second of screen-vision, then it fades to black). After multiple attempts it's working now, for some reason. Anyway, if I don't cover the race, it's because my monitor's gone wonky again, not because I've keeled over.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I went to see the Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs. The guy on the door said "well that's an hour and a half you'll never get back".
"Crap?" I asked.
"Apparently they're taking it off all over the place" he answered.
.....and I'm a technophobe
but I loved it!
Wonderful dialogue written like a stage play. As good a performance by Fassbender as I've seen and even Kate Winslett rose to the occasion. Well done Danny Boyle.
You would love it. A film about an egotistical, sexist piece of scum who thought the world revolved around their little plot of earth.
You have a lot in common with jobs.
Not seen it yet but by all accounts from friends who have it is absolutely brilliant. It doesn't portray Jobs in anything other than the harshest of lights and as Roger has said it has fabulous dialogue and performances.
I am very much looking forward to it and certainly don't expect to be disappointed.
@DPJHodges: Corbyn and other Labour spokesman now have to answer question "would you have authorised drone strike that killed Jihadi John".
Does the British Prime Minister now control United States' armed forces? Has anyone told Donald Trump?
The British prime minister does control the use of UK drones and if American intelligence had indicated JJ, was in their area of responsibility, they would have requested a British strike. It is a perfectly valid question, but you knew that.
I am not in the American area of responsibility! ;0
While I'd agree in general, there must be cases (like this) where being the judge, the juror, a prosecutor, or one of the police officers investigating the case, is very distressing.
This is by no means the worst sex killing I've read about, but it's still awful.
A friend of mine prosecuted a lot of child abuse cases, which he found nauseating.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
I think people will be able to read the tenor of both our posts and see who is coming over as the fool.
I never claimed the Russians have committed any ground troops. I very specifically said they were using the SAA to liberate and hold territory. Do you want them to commit ground troops? I can't help thinking you'd be on here in hysterics if they ever did.
I have never 'called victory' (where do you get this stuff) - I have said I'm delighted that a force that is serious about defeating terror and re-establishing stable government in Syria has entered the arena. That remains the case. I find your tortured logic on the success levels of the two campaigns to be practically unreadable.
Regarding operational tempo, this article summarises the US led campaign:
'...the 31-day air campaign that helped free Iraq from Saddam’s government averaged more than 800 offensive sorties a day. By contrast, over the past two months U.S. aircraft and a small number of partner forces have conducted 412 total strikes in Iraq and Syria—an average of seven strikes a day. With Islamic State in control of an area approaching 50,000 square miles, it is easy to see why this level of effort has not had much impact on its operations.' http://csbaonline.org/2014/10/15/the-unserious-air-war-against-isis/
Your allegations on the US being more delicate about civilians and the Russians hitting hospitals - I'd like to see evidence. The fact you use 'alleged' in your own statement doesn't inspire confidence.
Russia never claimed it was solely targeting ISIS - it is targeting all terrorist groups within Syria. It has offered to work with the US, and with patriotic rebel groups, to identify targets, and it seems the FSA is working with them, but the US not: https://www.rt.com/news/321820-putin-interview-syria-g20/
Interesting take on the by-election from the Economist:
"There the election in September of Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left London MP, as Labour’s leader has been a tremendous boost for UKIP—and its candidate in Oldham, John Bickley."
Thanks @Cyclefree - that sounds extremely plausible. My friend is from Rhodes - came here to be a nurse (not much to do on Rhodes for the aspirational apparently), and without wishing to be disparaging, her peer group probably fall into the latter category.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
The problem is that the nature of debt requires losses to occur somewhere.
It's not possible for all Greeks to withdraw their money from the bank, because the bank is just a thin sliver of equity between borrowers and savers.
The most likely way I saw for Greece to be forced from the Euro was a run on its banks, and the government being forced to print Drachma to settle their obligations.
In other words, great if you're the first person out of Pireus Bank with their money. But the 100th person will cause the bank to collapse. That's why any exit from the Euro has to be sudden: you have to announce that - as of tomorrow - the country is not in the Eurozone. (Or more realistically, as of a week Monday, and then you have a week of work to fix everything before the banks reopen.)
I'm so sorry! I'm a fool - there are certain members that are sort of 'twinned' in my mind for no explicable reason, and you and cyclefree are two I'm afraid.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
Maybe it is something more common in first generation migrants. I have not encountered it amongst second generation.
Thanks @Cyclefree - that sounds extremely plausible. My friend is from Rhodes - came here to be a nurse (not much to do on Rhodes for the aspirational apparently), and without wishing to be disparaging, her peer group probably fall into the latter category.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
The problem is that the nature of debt requires losses to occur somewhere.
It's not possible for all Greeks to withdraw their money from the bank, because the bank is just a thin sliver of equity between borrowers and savers.
The most likely way I saw for Greece to be forced from the Euro was a run on its banks, and the government being forced to print Drachma to settle their obligations.
In other words, great if you're the first person out of Pireus Bank with their money. But the 100th person will cause the bank to collapse. That's why any exit from the Euro has to be sudden: you have to announce that - as of tomorrow - the country is not in the Eurozone. (Or more realistically, as of a week Monday, and then you have a week of work to fix everything before the banks reopen.)
I'm so sorry! I'm a fool - there are certain members that are sort of 'twinned' in my mind for no explicable reason, and you and cyclefree are two I'm afraid.
Thanks @Cyclefree - that sounds extremely plausible. My friend is from Rhodes - came here to be a nurse (not much to do on Rhodes for the aspirational apparently), and without wishing to be disparaging, her peer group probably fall into the latter category.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
The problem is that the nature of debt requires losses to occur somewhere.
It's not possible for all Greeks to withdraw their money from the bank, because the bank is just a thin sliver of equity between borrowers and savers.
The most likely way I saw for Greece to be forced from the Euro was a run on its banks, and the government being forced to print Drachma to settle their obligations.
In other words, great if you're the first person out of Pireus Bank with their money. But the 100th person will cause the bank to collapse. That's why any exit from the Euro has to be sudden: you have to announce that - as of tomorrow - the country is not in the Eurozone. (Or more realistically, as of a week Monday, and then you have a week of work to fix everything before the banks reopen.)
I'm so sorry! I'm a fool - there are certain members that are sort of 'twinned' in my mind for no explicable reason, and you and cyclefree are two I'm afraid.
It appears that the only way to get it right is an expensive approach which pollsters have steered away from in order to make polling more affordable..
The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.
This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.
"Jihadi John" registers large multiples more with the general population than "Palmyra" or "Raqqa". JJ's demise, whilst not being immediately militarily significant, is very significant in the context of the whole conflict. That's the nature of propaganda and why protagonists employ it. To describe it as "panto" merely demonstrates your tendency towards the simple mindedness that you deride.
Interesting take on the by-election from the Economist:
"There the election in September of Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left London MP, as Labour’s leader has been a tremendous boost for UKIP—and its candidate in Oldham, John Bickley."
There's an element of "heads I win" in the article. If Labour wins, it shows that it's good to have moderate centrist candidates. If Labour loses, it shows it's bad to have left-wing leaders. There is, in fact, apparently no result that will produce a verdict unwelcome to the Economist's writer.
My monitor's been on the blink (a second of screen-vision, then it fades to black). After multiple attempts it's working now, for some reason. Anyway, if I don't cover the race, it's because my monitor's gone wonky again, not because I've keeled over.
Unless I have keeled over, of course.
Good evening
Sounds like a loose connection in the HDMI or whatever display cable. Does it go blank/black if you wiggle the cable?
It appears that the only way to get it right is an expensive approach which pollsters have steered away from in order to make polling more affordable..
Nick, I am feeling particularly smug, having just earlier in the thread asked two questions - how universal is online access and do phone pollers call both landlines and mobile. Sometimes the answer is obvious - sampling error.
Mr. Borough, I did try the connections, but that didn't seem to make any difference. It didn't work in the afternoon either, and I just checked it in the evening on the off-chance.
I thought it unlikely to be a connection issue, as it always showed the screen for a moment, then faded (which seems very consistent), but then I have all the technical aptitude of a potato.
Think it might be ok?
Obviously not pleased with the issue, but at least I have a new 400 hour RPG to distract me.
I don't know how many Indians, or people of Indian descent live in this country but I think the BBC may have p----- them off. We heard the national anthem, then just when we were going to hear the Indian National Anthem and listen to the speeches, they cut away AGAIN.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I think that is probably first generation immigrants. No one from the second and third generations would consider Modi as their PM or even India as their home or country. If England were better at cricket then I'm sure even that test would be passed.
Dave will have curried a lot of favour in the Indian community in the UK. His speech went down very well in my parents house, though they are already Tory voters. However, it also seems to have gone down well with more sceptical Indians that I know.
It was probably quite the experience for Dave though, giving a speech to that many people at a political rally isn't something that most British politicians will experience.
Interesting take on the by-election from the Economist:
"There the election in September of Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left London MP, as Labour’s leader has been a tremendous boost for UKIP—and its candidate in Oldham, John Bickley."
There's an element of "heads I win" in the article. If Labour wins, it shows that it's good to have moderate centrist candidates. If Labour loses, it shows it's bad to have left-wing leaders. There is, in fact, apparently no result that will produce a verdict unwelcome to the Economist's writer.
Would it be too unkind, Nick, to point out that that seems to be exactly the approach you take to pretty much anything Corbyn says or does or anything he has said or done? All of it, in your view, shows what a reasonable nice person he is.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
I think people will be able to read the tenor of both our posts and see who is coming over as the fool. (snip)
Indeed. Most people can see that you are indeed, a pro-Putin fool. (*)
As in victory by the Russians in Syria, I refer you to one of your somewhat hysterical posts from a few weeks ago about the effects of Russian bombings.
(*) At this juncture, it's irrelevant if that's anti-US or pro-Russia.
I don't know how many Indians, or people of Indian descent live in this country but I think the BBC may have p----- them off. We heard the national anthem, then just when we were going to hear the Indian National Anthem and listen to the speeches, they cut away AGAIN.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
Very much enjoying it so far. Surprised by the companions (ended up liking one more than I thought I would), and it's an improvement on Fallout 3 in every regard. May well end up being better than Skyrim.
If I'd had computer access today [well, a working monitor] I might've written a preliminary review, though (again, if I can) I'll probably be too busy with F1 to do that until after the weekend.
So, if you have any questions, do feel free to ask.
There's an element of "heads I win" in the article. If Labour wins, it shows that it's good to have moderate centrist candidates. If Labour loses, it shows it's bad to have left-wing leaders. There is, in fact, apparently no result that will produce a verdict unwelcome to the Economist's writer.
Labour usually win by a very handsome margin in Oldham. Even under Foot and Brown, the vote share was around 45%.
I'm surprised to see a loss even being contemplated.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I think that is probably first generation immigrants. No one from the second and third generations would consider Modi as their PM or even India as their home or country. If England were better at cricket then I'm sure even that test would be passed.
Dave will have curried a lot of favour in the Indian community in the UK. His speech went down very well in my parents house, though they are already Tory voters. However, it also seems to have gone down well with more sceptical Indians that I know.
It was probably quite the experience for Dave though, giving a speech to that many people at a political rally isn't something that most British politicians will experience.
Both people interviewed by R5 'sounded' young, if that means anything. I would have guessed second-generation. I might well be wrong though.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I think that is probably first generation immigrants. No one from the second and third generations would consider Modi as their PM or even India as their home or country. If England were better at cricket then I'm sure even that test would be passed.
Dave will have curried a lot of favour in the Indian community in the UK. His speech went down very well in my parents house, though they are already Tory voters. However, it also seems to have gone down well with more sceptical Indians that I know.
It was probably quite the experience for Dave though, giving a speech to that many people at a political rally isn't something that most British politicians will experience.
Thanks for that Mr. PB. I wonder what our good Captain Doc Sunil's parents made of it. We know his Mum at least is not a Conservative supporter.
I agree with Nick Palmer about the Economist article about Oldham West & Royton. It gives a lot of background but it studiously avoids giving any real hint about what it thinks is going to happen.
The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.
This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.
"Jihadi John" registers large multiples more with the general population than "Palmyra" or "Raqqa". JJ's demise, whilst not being immediately militarily significant, is very significant in the context of the whole conflict. That's the nature of propaganda and why protagonists employ it. To describe it as "panto" merely demonstrates your tendency towards the simple mindedness that you deride.
On the contrary, your post appears to agree with me. Surely the whole point of attacking ISIS is to eliminate them as a force, so they stop killing people, not score victories in the field of what you call propaganda (l agree) and I call pantomime.
Very much enjoying it so far. Surprised by the companions (ended up liking one more than I thought I would), and it's an improvement on Fallout 3 in every regard. May well end up being better than Skyrim.
If I'd had computer access today [well, a working monitor] I might've written a preliminary review, though (again, if I can) I'll probably be too busy with F1 to do that until after the weekend.
So, if you have any questions, do feel free to ask.
I shall await your review with baited breath. So far I have one friend who says it is rubbish and another who hasn't been heard of since he started playing (doesn't even answer his phone).
In your review please mention the role played by the doggie, that is my biggest block at the moment.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
I think people will be able to read the tenor of both our posts and see who is coming over as the fool. (snip)
Indeed. Most people can see that you are indeed, a pro-Putin fool. (*)
As in victory by the Russians in Syria, I refer you to one of your somewhat hysterical posts from a few weeks ago about the effects of Russian bombings.
(*) At this juncture, it's irrelevant if that's anti-US or pro-Russia.
I'm really not sure what to make of this. I don't think you've ever given me such an utter capitulation. Perhaps you'll gather your wits and do an actual reply later?
Mr. Llama, you encounter Dogmeat early on. I, er, ditched him for another companion
He's of some use, but the companions are more talkative than in Skyrim or Fallout 3. It's not over the top, but they react to interesting sights and occasionally join in a conversation you have with a third party (if it fits). Works really well, so far, almost like party banter from Dragon Age.
Mr. T, The Septics had a very clever fellow playing on their side a few years ago. He came out with a doctrine which said, if the USA goes to war it should go all in - with enough troops, equipment and support to win. Otherwise it should not go to war at all. A very sound doctrine in my view and one which the UK as well as the USA should follow.
Of course, it rather does depend on the politicians knowing why they are going to war, what they want to achieve and so knowing what victory looks like. Such high level thinking seems completely beyond the likes of Obama and Cameron.
Mr Llama. sorry, in and out all day, so gaps between posting.
For me, the first question of any foreign intervention is why should one ounce of British blood be spilt in this conflict? If that cannot be clearly articulated, intervention should be withheld until it can be. Once it is, objectives (which in any case have to be adaptive as the situation on the ground evolves) must be set and the resources required to achieve those dedicated. I too am a firm believer that massive and quick overpowering force ultimately results in least damage.
Mr. Llama, you encounter Dogmeat early on. I, er, ditched him for another companion
He's of some use, but the companions are more talkative than in Skyrim or Fallout 3. It's not over the top, but they react to interesting sights and occasionally join in a conversation you have with a third party (if it fits). Works really well, so far, almost like party banter from Dragon Age.
Ok thanks for that Mr. D. I think I'll wait for your full review before parting with my dosh.
An interesting move suing Clarkson for racial discrimination. Unfair dismissal would just make him money. This will ruin his reputation and possibly his new program.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
I think people will be able to read the tenor of both our posts and see who is coming over as the fool. (snip)
Indeed. Most people can see that you are indeed, a pro-Putin fool. (*)
As in victory by the Russians in Syria, I refer you to one of your somewhat hysterical posts from a few weeks ago about the effects of Russian bombings.
(*) At this juncture, it's irrelevant if that's anti-US or pro-Russia.
I'm really not sure what to make of this. I don't think you've ever given me such an utter capitulation. Perhaps you'll gather your wits and do an actual reply later?
My wits are fine, and I've not capitulated anything.
If you don't want to come across as a pro-Putin fool, perhaps you should moderate your posts away from being a pro-Putin fool.
The unregrettable demise of Jihadi John has to be seen in the context of fighting an asymmetric war against unconventional opponents, who rely heavily on disseminating videos of their gruesome activities as a deliberate part of their strategy. Up to now they've been able to do that, and be seen to do that, with a large measure of impunity.
It's important that we show that there is no impunity, therefore the tactical value of the drone strike is far in excess of just taking out one particularly unpleasant individual.
Whilst nobody will be weeping that another member of ISIS has shuffled off this mortal coil, I think it's the fact the Syrian army are at the gates of Palmyra that is showing ISIS there's no impunity. Not the death of one 'Martyr' in an organisation numbering 80,000.
This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.
"Jihadi John" registers large multiples more with the general population than "Palmyra" or "Raqqa". JJ's demise, whilst not being immediately militarily significant, is very significant in the context of the whole conflict. That's the nature of propaganda and why protagonists employ it. To describe it as "panto" merely demonstrates your tendency towards the simple mindedness that you deride.
On the contrary, your post appears to agree with me. Surely the whole point of attacking ISIS is to eliminate them as a force, so they stop killing people, not score victories in the field of what you call propaganda (l agree) and I call pantomime.
Tell us how Russia's actions are in any way eliminating ISIS as a force, given their multinational nature?
Mr. Llama, I'll get a little work on that done now, but my time's quite limited (both this evening and over the weekend), as well as monitor concerns.
Anyway, glad it came back to life, even if it's a one-off, as I suspect my silence during an F1 weekend might cause a sigh of relief as wallets are not lightened by errant tips raised eyebrow here or there.
R5 were just interviewing a couple of people from the Divali celebrations at Wembley, where Indian PM Modi is speaking. Two said: "our PM", "our country" or "our leader".
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I think that is probably first generation immigrants. No one from the second and third generations would consider Modi as their PM or even India as their home or country. If England were better at cricket then I'm sure even that test would be passed.
Dave will have curried a lot of favour in the Indian community in the UK. His speech went down very well in my parents house, though they are already Tory voters. However, it also seems to have gone down well with more sceptical Indians that I know.
It was probably quite the experience for Dave though, giving a speech to that many people at a political rally isn't something that most British politicians will experience.
Comments
Easy to carp from the sidelines.
If given the opportunity, you'd back both horses for as much as possible (proportional stakes) for a guaranteed return. And the bookie/layer would be bankrupt before the starters orders.
There is great dissatisfaction with the fact that when the changeover occurred, prices that had been in drachma were just put directly into euros. People didn't notice until they started to run out of money quicker (I was nonplussed too, but this is what she said).
All that said, could those with savings in euros just use a mechanism to keep them in euros? It would make the real value of their savings much higher after the change back.
It's not real, though, Pong.
They found a few dyed in the wool labour supporters who said they would vote UKIP.
With the comments of Ian Austin and Graham Jones today, openly contemptuous of Corbyn, I'm starting to wonder.
There's a link to the whole thing on Guido's site. The article is good on the wider significance, too.
You have a lot in common with jobs.
This speaks nothing of any worthwhile military objective and everything of the sort of foreign policy panto (let's film our reactions to Osama getting popped) that the Americans go in for. It's Military entertainment for for the simple minded.
We are currently trying to get the local three-quidders to sign up as full members. Maybe some of them will be ready to man the barricades for the Marxist cause.
So, in summary, and to my disappointment, no signs of a Corbynite takeover. Just business as usual for the 6 to 8 who turn up at branch meetings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3316857/This-despicable-act-evil-never-forgiven-forgotten-Becky-Watts-father-tells-court-easier-killers-taken-coping-daughter-s-death.html
The interesting scenario (one played out on Deal or No Deal all the time), is when the unlikely option is the value bet and the punter is forced to bet large, so short-term losses can't be overcome by long-term laws of averages.
You could easily argue (although you wouldn't as an anti-US and pro-Putin fool) that the coalition's forces had been reversing the tide of ISIS's gains. ISIS had the inertia. Russia as Johnny-come-lately have been doing a few minor things in comparison.
It's also easy to argue that the coalition's approach has been tempered by the need to try to reduce other deaths. Russia does not have such restrictions.
And your calls of victory for Russia a month or so ago has rather fallen on fallow ground. And that progress is not just being made against ISIS/Al N. You should note where those Russia's contacts are taking place.
Also can you provide evidence for the sortie rates over the last couple of months, ignoring the four hospitals Russia is alleged to have hit? Because the US hitting hospitals is *evil*, Russia hitting the, is fine?
Your view rather bizarrely appears to be that being killed by Assad is 'better' then being killed by ISIS.
As usual, you are coming across (rightly or wrongly) as a pro-Putin fool.
The problem is that the nature of debt requires losses to occur somewhere.
It's not possible for all Greeks to withdraw their money from the bank, because the bank is just a thin sliver of equity between borrowers and savers.
The most likely way I saw for Greece to be forced from the Euro was a run on its banks, and the government being forced to print Drachma to settle their obligations.
In other words, great if you're the first person out of Pireus Bank with their money. But the 100th person will cause the bank to collapse. That's why any exit from the Euro has to be sudden: you have to announce that - as of tomorrow - the country is not in the Eurozone. (Or more realistically, as of a week Monday, and then you have a week of work to fix everything before the banks reopen.)
Unless they are Indians, Modi is not their PM or leader. India is not their country.
Anecdotally, that is the problem with integration.
I hope nonetheless that they eventually can find some sort of peace.
Nigel is very popular within the party, nobody has publically trashed him.
On topic - Don, I see you will forgive the "youthful political advisor" - what about the numerous controversial comments of the Shad chancellor, Mr Milne and ohh Corbyn hmself?
The Labour party seems to be busy divesting itself of credibility.
And how do you know that they were "no more than the other parties" ?
Obviously I don't know the comparison with the other parties, fair point, but I've read accounts and they weren't pretty.
I'm sure if Ukip could wind back the clock to January they'd do things differently, but that's hardly a revelation.
My monitor's been on the blink (a second of screen-vision, then it fades to black). After multiple attempts it's working now, for some reason. Anyway, if I don't cover the race, it's because my monitor's gone wonky again, not because I've keeled over.
Unless I have keeled over, of course.
I am very much looking forward to it and certainly don't expect to be disappointed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/34403406
This is by no means the worst sex killing I've read about, but it's still awful.
A friend of mine prosecuted a lot of child abuse cases, which he found nauseating.
@LBC: Jihadi John's killing: Whose side are you on?
I never claimed the Russians have committed any ground troops. I very specifically said they were using the SAA to liberate and hold territory. Do you want them to commit ground troops? I can't help thinking you'd be on here in hysterics if they ever did.
I have never 'called victory' (where do you get this stuff) - I have said I'm delighted that a force that is serious about defeating terror and re-establishing stable government in Syria has entered the arena. That remains the case. I find your tortured logic on the success levels of the two campaigns to be practically unreadable.
Regarding operational tempo, this article summarises the US led campaign:
'...the 31-day air campaign that helped free Iraq from Saddam’s government averaged more than 800 offensive sorties a day. By contrast, over the past two months U.S. aircraft and a small number of partner forces have conducted 412 total strikes in Iraq and Syria—an average of seven strikes a day. With Islamic State in control of an area approaching 50,000 square miles, it is easy to see why this level of effort has not had much impact on its operations.'
http://csbaonline.org/2014/10/15/the-unserious-air-war-against-isis/
Your allegations on the US being more delicate about civilians and the Russians hitting hospitals - I'd like to see evidence. The fact you use 'alleged' in your own statement doesn't inspire confidence.
Russia never claimed it was solely targeting ISIS - it is targeting all terrorist groups within Syria. It has offered to work with the US, and with patriotic rebel groups, to identify targets, and it seems the FSA is working with them, but the US not: https://www.rt.com/news/321820-putin-interview-syria-g20/
"There the election in September of Jeremy Corbyn, a hard-left London MP, as Labour’s leader has been a tremendous boost for UKIP—and its candidate in Oldham, John Bickley."
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21678227-oldhams-election-campaign-microcosm-social-democracys-woes-trouble-labourland
"Tremendous boost"? Sounds a bit of a stretch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gMJBQoHJ4E
https://t.co/UbKhVHfgbj
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/13/new-research-general-election-polls-inaccurate
It appears that the only way to get it right is an expensive approach which pollsters have steered away from in order to make polling more affordable..
All the best @Cyclefree
Sounds like a loose connection in the HDMI or whatever display cable. Does it go blank/black if you wiggle the cable?
I thought it unlikely to be a connection issue, as it always showed the screen for a moment, then faded (which seems very consistent), but then I have all the technical aptitude of a potato.
Think it might be ok?
Obviously not pleased with the issue, but at least I have a new 400 hour RPG to distract me.
"You would love it. A film about an egotistical, sexist piece of scum who thought the world revolved around their little plot of earth.
You have a lot in common with jobs."
A bit of a strong reaction to a film review to a film review!
Dave will have curried a lot of favour in the Indian community in the UK. His speech went down very well in my parents house, though they are already Tory voters. However, it also seems to have gone down well with more sceptical Indians that I know.
It was probably quite the experience for Dave though, giving a speech to that many people at a political rally isn't something that most British politicians will experience.
"... I have a new 400 hour RPG to distract me."
Which RPG would this be, Mr. Dancer? Surely not Fallout4.
As in victory by the Russians in Syria, I refer you to one of your somewhat hysterical posts from a few weeks ago about the effects of Russian bombings.
(*) At this juncture, it's irrelevant if that's anti-US or pro-Russia.
Very much enjoying it so far. Surprised by the companions (ended up liking one more than I thought I would), and it's an improvement on Fallout 3 in every regard. May well end up being better than Skyrim.
If I'd had computer access today [well, a working monitor] I might've written a preliminary review, though (again, if I can) I'll probably be too busy with F1 to do that until after the weekend.
So, if you have any questions, do feel free to ask.
I'm surprised to see a loss even being contemplated.
In your review please mention the role played by the doggie, that is my biggest block at the moment.
He's of some use, but the companions are more talkative than in Skyrim or Fallout 3. It's not over the top, but they react to interesting sights and occasionally join in a conversation you have with a third party (if it fits). Works really well, so far, almost like party banter from Dragon Age.
For me, the first question of any foreign intervention is why should one ounce of British blood be spilt in this conflict? If that cannot be clearly articulated, intervention should be withheld until it can be. Once it is, objectives (which in any case have to be adaptive as the situation on the ground evolves) must be set and the resources required to achieve those dedicated. I too am a firm believer that massive and quick overpowering force ultimately results in least damage.
An interesting move suing Clarkson for racial discrimination. Unfair dismissal would just make him money. This will ruin his reputation and possibly his new program.
If you don't want to come across as a pro-Putin fool, perhaps you should moderate your posts away from being a pro-Putin fool.
In the meantime, you're a pro-Putin fool.
Anyway, glad it came back to life, even if it's a one-off, as I suspect my silence during an F1 weekend might cause a sigh of relief as wallets are not lightened by errant tips raised eyebrow here or there.