No, the lesson (as not learnt by 'traitors' such as yourself) is that political decisions such as removing tolls can have real side effects that need to be guarded against. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP are incapable of learning.
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Removing tolls had absolutely no impact, whatsoever, on the bridge according to the engineers who run it. There hasn't been a significant increase in traffic anyway but even so, the bridge was already at capacity for most of the day before tolls were removed. The whole idea that tolls had any impact on what has happened is a canard.
The rest of your SNPBad ranting just goes beyond reason let alone reality.
Removing tolls did have an impact, as the SNP did not guarantee the direct grant that replaced it. Perhaps you need to consider the effects of that before you reply ...
Nothing within the toll system required the money to be provided to the bridge authority, Holyrood had full devolved control over how the money was allocated with or without tolls.
At least you seem to have given up on the spurious argument that abandoning tolls somehow damaged the bridge. So perhaps we are making some progress.
Following up from my post below: I was wrong. A Saturn I engine was test fired, dunked, cleaned, and re-fired. The engine was not even designed to be reused.
Would have been more impressive if it had actually been recovered from splashdown though! (I suspect being dunked in a salt water tank doesn't cause anything like the same stress.)
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
Well if the Labour party is going to be in favour of completion in the media and lots of competing media organisations, so much the better. Will the BBC be included? A legitimate question.
Trouble is I don't think this is about making it easier for us to know more about what is going on. I suspect that it is about (a) attacking Murdoch; (b) imposing some form of state regulation of the press; and (c) controlling or limiting criticism of Labour.
I would like to be proved wrong but- based on how Labour has behaved over Leveson and MPs more generally - I'm afraid I trust politicians with regard to press freedom about as much as I would trust IS to follow the Geneva Convention in relation to POWs.
FPTP offers some parties 100% of the power with ~35% of the votes (twice in the last three elections in the Uk's case). This is a broken system.
If you can't understand that that is a circular argument, then there's no hope for you.
It's not circular because under PR you cannot get 100% of the power with ~35% of the vote. Period. Qualified power is not absolute power.
I guess you failed to comprehend why I pointed out the very real consideration parties have to make in coalition about what is acceptable to their own voters when they agree a coalition deal.
But then the truth is, like all FPTP defenders, your only real argument is that it gives Tory governments at least half the time. Logic and the coherence of your argument will always be irrelevant to you.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I don't think the killing of French prisoners was particularly unusual, in the circumstances (and in any cases, most prisoners survived to be ransomed). It was a hard-headed military decision, but killing of prisoners occurred on other occasions (eg Richard I at Acre).
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
I am a tad confused as to how requiring people to register to vote rather than letting someone else list who lives at an address can actually be seen as a bad thing let alone something done for party advantage. Perhaps you could explain.
And how making constituencies more equal in size is inherently a bad thing.
Because they aren't more equal sized. They are sized based on the number of registered electors not number of people living there. As an MP is a representative of all people in their constituency it doesn't make sense to base them on people who want to register to vote.
Really? PR fans say that MPs only represent the people who voted for them.
Mr. F, wasn't the Acre situation because Saladin was playing silly buggers, deliberately prolonging negotiations to exacerbate the food/water problem for Richard?
[Besides which, Saladin accepted the surrender of a few hundred Templars, promising their lives, then killed them all out of hand].
Mr. Pulpstar, the ancient Greeks had both railways and steam power. But they used the steam power for little toys, and the railways were drawn by oxen.
Mr. Patrick, winning can mean capturing and ransoming just as easily as killing.
That said, killing or not could have a psychological impact as well as longer term implications (do people trust you enough to surrender if you've killed people who surrendered previously? And, of course, dead men won't fight you again in the future).
I do recommend it often, but By Sword and Fire, by Sean McGlynn, is an excellent book for exploring brutality in the Middle Ages and why it (and sometimes mercy) made sense for that world.
In general, there was a strong economic incentive to capture and ransom, rather than to kill prisoners. I don't think Agincourt changed that.
It's just that on occasion, killing prisoners (or refusing to take prisoners) made more sense.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
The figure that was talked about by SpaceX was 70% of the launch cost is the first stage, and they plan to be able to re-use them almost immediately (a quick check of the engines then fill it up with fuel and go again!) - they expect around 40 launches from each first stage.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
The problem with many PR systems is they have a 'Prizes for All' element embedded in them.
Just because something is popular there is no reason to believe it is the right thing to do. The last type of government you want is a popular one dishing out popular policies. What you need is a good government and one that has the long term interests paramount. One that takes popular and unpopular decisions.
Mr. F, wasn't the Acre situation because Saladin was playing silly buggers, deliberately prolonging negotiations to exacerbate the food/water problem for Richard?
[Besides which, Saladin accepted the surrender of a few hundred Templars, promising their lives, then killed them all out of hand].
I think that's correct.
Common soldiers, who couldn't expect to be ransomed (although it sometimes happened) often did kill noble and knightly prisoners, but quite often they had an eye to profit as well (the King of Scotland was captured by an archer at Neville's Cross, who received a reward of £1,000 from Edward III).
54-46 with ICM.Once non-engagers engage a bit,the urge to keep the status quo should bump this up to either side of 60-40 come polling day.A mixture of Project Fear and Sir John Major will swing it up.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
I do wonder about the very big launches. If you want a moon shot, for instance, you need a king-sized launcher. When you've got something that big already, do you really want it to be weighed down by more fuel (which means you need to make it even bigger) just so that the first stage can get back down? But if you're right that they can do it basically from "spare" fuel (after all, they don't have to fight gravity so much on the way down) then it seems reasonable.
[I expressed myself badly re why I wondered if more fuel made life more expensive. I know that fuel is cheap compared to the mechanical stuff. But my understanding is that cost of a launch goes up rapidly with increased weight, presumably because a more powerful rocket is much more complex/expensive than a smaller one rather than because the fuel is expensive. My reasoning was more that "extra fuel for the way down adds weight, and weight is expensive". But again, if they can do it on what would be in the reserves anyway, then all's good.]
Again they're good questions, and I don't have the answers to them. I might hazard a guess that for larger rockets with greater height and diameters, aerodynamics would play a larger part than mere weight.
I've just checked on Wiki. The Saturn V had 34,020 kN of thrust. The Falcon 9 Heavy will have 17,615 kN.
As I said earlier, this was just the first test. They have to: 1) Land reliably. 2) Learn how to refurbish the stage and/or its components; 3) Prove that such reused stages can fly reliably. 4) Do this at less cost than building a new rocket.
The important thing for them will be to learn from their mistakes / problems and ensure they do not happen again. Something NASA's been very poor at - the Rogers report into the Challenger tragedy should be required reading for engineers of any discipline. In particular, Feynman's comments should be noted by any organisation where lives are at risk, especially about risk management.
No, the lesson (as not learnt by 'traitors' such as yourself) is that political decisions such as removing tolls can have real side effects that need to be guarded against. Sadly, it looks as though the SNP are incapable of learning.
"There was no chance of catastrophic failure"
But there were failures (multiple), and important ones. And saying there was 'no chance' is ridiculous for reasons we have gone into before. More worryingly, the failures were in parts which, whilst known to be problematic, were not the ones expected to fail first (though the whole subsystem was due to be replaced).
Let me fix your last sentence: it's another tale of outstanding incompetence from the SNP administrators and leaves the 'traitors' with yet more egg on their over-stuffed faces.
Removing tolls had absolutely no impact, whatsoever, on the bridge according to the engineers who run it. There hasn't been a significant increase in traffic anyway but even so, the bridge was already at capacity for most of the day before tolls were removed. The whole idea that tolls had any impact on what has happened is a canard.
The rest of your SNPBad ranting just goes beyond reason let alone reality.
Removing tolls did have an impact, as the SNP did not guarantee the direct grant that replaced it. Perhaps you need to consider the effects of that before you reply ...
Nothing within the toll system required the money to be provided to the bridge authority, Holyrood had full devolved control over how the money was allocated with or without tolls.
At least you seem to have given up on the spurious argument that abandoning tolls somehow damaged the bridge. So perhaps we are making some progress.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
The figure that was talked about by SpaceX was 70% of the launch cost is the first stage, and they plan to be able to re-use them almost immediately (a quick check of the engines then fill it up with fuel and go again!) - they expect around 40 launches from each first stage.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
Thanks for that. It'll be amazing if they manage it. I'd been assuming they'd strip them down after each use, which would have drastically increased costs.
Extraordinary article this one - IRA members upset because they thought the 'peace process' meant they had carte blanche to continue & even expand their criminal activities.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
The figure that was talked about by SpaceX was 70% of the launch cost is the first stage, and they plan to be able to re-use them almost immediately (a quick check of the engines then fill it up with fuel and go again!) - they expect around 40 launches from each first stage.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
Thanks for that. It'll be amazing if they manage it. I'd been assuming they'd strip them down after each use, which would have drastically increased costs.
Yes it's quite fascinating, and huge progress over what was the state of rocket technology for decades.
I imagine that today's rocket will be getting a very detailled strip-down rather than a tow to the fuel pump though, but it's still an amazing achievement. A good day for science and engineering
Edit: The Challenger report makes very sobering reading indeed. Worse is the Columbia report, which is scathing around the fact that the required lessons to be leaned from Challenger still hadn't got through to NASA and its partners 15 years later. RIP fourteen good man and women. http://caib1.nasa.gov/
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
That's less than 0.5%.
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
(snip)
(snip) As for your last line: SpaceX have done the calculations and obviously think it is worth the extra fuel carried. AIUI, they carry extra marginal fuel anyway to cope with launch anomalies such as engine outages, and much of this margin is used in the landing. If it runs out, the stage does not land but the launch has still been successful.
Very interesting, thanks. SpaceX and friends already seem to have cut down the cost of getting stuff into space substantially, even without reuse; I wonder whether reuse is going to shave off about as much cost again, or whether it's just a relatively small cherry on the top.
The figure that was talked about by SpaceX was 70% of the launch cost is the first stage, and they plan to be able to re-use them almost immediately (a quick check of the engines then fill it up with fuel and go again!) - they expect around 40 launches from each first stage.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
Thanks for that. It'll be amazing if they manage it. I'd been assuming they'd strip them down after each use, which would have drastically increased costs.
Yes it's quite fascinating, and huge progress over what was the state of rocket technology for decades.
I imagine that today's rocket will be getting a very detailled strip-down rather than a tow to the fuel pump though, but it's still an amazing achievement. A good day for science and engineering
Edit: The Challenger report makes very sobering reading indeed. Worse is the Columbia report, which is scathing around the fact that the required lessons to be leaned from Challenger still hadn't got through to NASA and its partners 15 years later. RIP fourteen good man and women. http://caib1.nasa.gov/
I don't think I've ever read the Colombia Report. It'll have to go on my list.
Incidentally, I hope anyone even tangentially involved with software has heard of Therac-25?
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
This is where the FPTP apologists get really fun.
You do realise you are trying to defend FPTP by talking about Proportional shares now?
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
This is where the FPTP apologists get really fun.
You do realise you are trying to defend FPTP by talking about Proportional shares now?
Comical stuff.
No, not at all. I haven't mentioned a proportional share at all. It was you who first mentioned a particular number of votes, which I can't see any relevance to.
I don't need to be an apologist for FPTP. It's our voting system, endorsed as such by a decisive majority in a referendum. I know you struggle with this concept, but there you go.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
That's less than 0.5%.
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
No, but I'm guessing such analysis would be more favourable to Labour now than it would have been in 2005.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
That's less than 0.5%.
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
Of course they can't.
Nothing about their argument can be logical or coherent because it's utter nonsense to start with. It's effectively "FPTP is best because Reasons".
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
Of course they can't.
Nothing about their argument can be logical or coherent because it's utter nonsense to start with. It's effectively "FPTP is best because Reasons".
FPTP is best because the people voted for it in a referendum. And you don't get a second crack at this one either.
Question for the engineers - just how significant is the ability to re-land the early stages of a rocket?
The figure that was talked about by SpaceX was 70% of the launch cost is the first stage, and they plan to be able to re-use them almost immediately (a quick check of the engines then fill it up with fuel and go again!) - they expect around 40 launches from each first stage.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
Thanks for that. It'll be amazing if they manage it. I'd been assuming they'd strip them down after each use, which would have drastically increased costs.
Yes it's quite fascinating, and huge progress over what was the state of rocket technology for decades.
I imagine that today's rocket will be getting a very detailled strip-down rather than a tow to the fuel pump though, but it's still an amazing achievement. A good day for science and engineering
Edit: The Challenger report makes very sobering reading indeed. Worse is the Columbia report, which is scathing around the fact that the required lessons to be leaned from Challenger still hadn't got through to NASA and its partners 15 years later. RIP fourteen good man and women. http://caib1.nasa.gov/
I don't think I've ever read the Colombia Report. It'll have to go on my list.
Incidentally, I hope anyone even tangentially involved with software has heard of Therac-25?
CAIB report is very long and dry, and I say that as someone who reads aviation accident reports for fun! Start with the 248 page "Executive Summary" Part I and go from there!
tl:dr - Every prior shuttle mission had tiles fall off and damage was frequent. It was only a matter of time until fatal damage to the tiles occurred.
Therac-25 - hell yes. Luckily I don't work with software where bugs kill people, but it's a very real-world example of the need for a level of QA commensurate with the use of the product. If you're writing software for use in critical systems like transport or medicine, you need both simple code and a LOT of testing.
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
Of course they can't.
Nothing about their argument can be logical or coherent because it's utter nonsense to start with. It's effectively "FPTP is best because Reasons".
FPTP is best because the people voted for it in a referendum. And you don't get a second crack at this one either.
I voted for d'Hondt. Oh no, wait - it wasn't on the ballot.
Mr. Patrick, sounds like the shift in warfare from the 12th century (when knights were routinely captured and ransomed rather than being killed) to later centuries when mass slaughter was the order of the day.
I agree that Campbell is an utter ****.
Maybe Agincourt was the trigger. Henry V ordered all the French prisoners executed because they were potentially about to be recaptured and might re-enter the fray. Chivalry sort of died that day and the thing to talk about for centuries after was not the amazing victory so much as the fact that Henry V made a very hard headed and correct military call by putting his prisoners to death! Bit like Churchill sinking the French fleet in 1940.
I don't think the killing of French prisoners was particularly unusual, in the circumstances (and in any cases, most prisoners survived to be ransomed). It was a hard-headed military decision, but killing of prisoners occurred on other occasions (eg Richard I at Acre).
French-funded Italian cross-bowmen where not killed by the Anglo-Norman Angevines. Crecy showed that the usurper France Count's discard of employment and morality and would lead to Poitier and Frankish capitulation.
O/T but relevant both to betting and PR: Adrian Kavanagh has done an excellent summary of the polling & his seat predictions for all the 2015 Irish polls:
In particular, take a look at the first table (Dáil-seat level estimates produced for each poll). The bottom line is that Fine Gael continues to make progress, and Labour might just be getting enough of a boost to get them out of the dead zone where they hold almost no seats. An FG minority or an FG-Lab coalition still look the best bets to me.
One word of caution: there seems to be a discrepancy between the seat estimates for the 13 Dec ST-BA poll and his original article on that poll:
You are, as ever on constitutional issues, talking utter balderdash. 35,201 people in the county constituency of Witney in the county of Oxfordshire voted for David Cameron to be the Member of Parliament for the said constituency. But many more - at least 11,334,576 people - voted for him to be Prime Minister.
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Could FPTP advocates make up their mind as to whether it is a system to elect local representatives or a presidential national vote to elect a Prime Minister?
Of course they can't.
Nothing about their argument can be logical or coherent because it's utter nonsense to start with. It's effectively "FPTP is best because Reasons".
FPTP is best because the people voted for it in a referendum. And you don't get a second crack at this one either.
I voted for d'Hondt. Oh no, wait - it wasn't on the ballot.
No form of PR was on the ballot. It was a choice between FPTP and gerrymandered FPTP.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
Let's equalise by population then, rather than registered voters.
Because that helps Labour? There's no other conceivable reason to make that change to the criterion which has always been used here.
Well let's go the other way, and have representation based on those who actually vote, rather than who are merely registered. As long as it was a PR system, I'd be happy with that.
Ah yes, the PR system such as that which has worked so well in Spain.
So your definition of "working well" is an electoral system which gives power to a party voted for by under 40% of those who cast a ballot.
My definition of "working well" for an electoral system picking an executive is that it allows the voters to pick the executive, not the politicians stitching it up after the event.
I don't recall being given a choice of who should be Prime Minister and who should hold offices of State after the election.
Because I didn't.
It was stitched up by politicians after the event.
Well, it seems to me that David Cameron (C, Witney) and Edward Miliband (Lab, Doncaster North) were put forward by their parties as their respective nominees for Prime Minister, and the British electorate decisively plumped for one over the other.
Under your defence of FPTP, a total of 20,759 people in my country of 5.3m peoplee and ~4.3m voters elected David Cameron as PM.
That's less than 0.5%.
Where did that number come from?
It's the number of votes that David Mundell got in his Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency. Quite how that's relevant to the debate I don't know.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Yes - but if you buy up competitors across all media, put pressure on the government to favour you based on fear of your media power, use your media power to pursue your own political agenda as a foreigner,- then it is not authoritarian overreach for an elected government to limit your power. They have a duty to.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Yes - but if you buy up competitors across all media, put pressure on the government to favour you based on fear of your media power, use your media power to pursue your own political agenda as a foreigner,- then it is not authoritarian overreach for an elected government to limit your power. They have a duty to.
Do you agree with anti-monopoly legislation?
Sounds a bit like the BBC.. apart from the foreign owner bit
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Yes - but if you buy up competitors across all media, put pressure on the government to favour you based on fear of your media power, use your media power to pursue your own political agenda as a foreigner,- then it is not authoritarian overreach for an elected government to limit your power. They have a duty to.
Do you agree with anti-monopoly legislation?
Given that if you added up the daily reader ship of all murdoch newspapers, it no doubt comes to way less than 10m probably, I cannot see how there is a 'monopoly'
The same for the reach of Sky News and other broadcasting.
If there is a monopoly in boardcasting then the only one is the BBC.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
CAIB report is very long and dry, and I say that as someone who reads aviation accident reports for fun! Start with the 248 page "Executive Summary" Part I and go from there!
tl:dr - Every prior shuttle mission had tiles fall off and damage was frequent. It was only a matter of time until fatal damage to the tiles occurred.
Therac-25 - hell yes. Luckily I don't work with software where bugs kill people, but it's a very real-world example of the need for a level of QA commensurate with the use of the product. If you're writing software for use in critical systems like transport or medicine, you need both simple code and a LOT of testing.
Thanks. Even though I've not read the report, I've read around about the Colombia tragedy, and isn't it a case (like the Challenger disaster) they thought: "Oh, we've had damage before and got away with it. That means its fine and we can reduce our safety margins?"
Instead, they should have been saying: "Holy cr@p. We've got recurring problems, and we've been lucky. Let's fix it."
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
50.2754% for the Tories (8,357,468/16,623,367), 50.2682% for Labour (5,013,580/9,973,660). Calculated as the sum of the votes for the winning party divided by the turnout, rather than an average of the percentages which doesn't account for varying constituency size.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
50.2754% for the Tories (8,357,468/16,623,367), 50.2682% for Labour (5,013,580/9,973,660). Calculated as the sum of the votes for the winning party divided by the turnout, rather than an average of the percentages which doesn't account for varying constituency size.
The change from 2010 probably tells us something, but I'm not sure what. Fewer marginals going forward, perhaps?
Totally OT so apologies for that but have just heard a former Jihadi/prisoner of ISIS claiming that IS has two parents: The Iraq Invasion by Bush/Blair and the failure of the west to intercede against Assad as he put down the Syrian revolution.
So basically "we hate you because you invaded a muslim state and we hate you because you didn't invade a muslim state".
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
50.2754% for the Tories (8,357,468/16,623,367), 50.2682% for Labour (5,013,580/9,973,660). Calculated as the sum of the votes for the winning party divided by the turnout, rather than an average of the percentages which doesn't account for varying constituency size.
The change from 2010 probably tells us something, but I'm not sure what. Fewer marginals going forward, perhaps?
Do the Labour numbers provide another bit of evidence that they are piling up votes where it doesn't matter?
CAIB report is very long and dry, and I say that as someone who reads aviation accident reports for fun! Start with the 248 page "Executive Summary" Part I and go from there!
tl:dr - Every prior shuttle mission had tiles fall off and damage was frequent. It was only a matter of time until fatal damage to the tiles occurred.
Therac-25 - hell yes. Luckily I don't work with software where bugs kill people, but it's a very real-world example of the need for a level of QA commensurate with the use of the product. If you're writing software for use in critical systems like transport or medicine, you need both simple code and a LOT of testing.
Thanks. Even though I've not read the report, I've read around about the Colombia tragedy, and isn't it a case (like the Challenger disaster) they thought: "Oh, we've had damage before and got away with it. That means its fine and we can reduce our safety margins?"
Instead, they should have been saying: "Holy cr@p. We've got recurring problems, and we've been lucky. Let's fix it."
Yes, exactly.
With Challenger they should have aborted given the unknown effect of the sub-zero temperatures on a whole load of systems, especially but not solely the O-rings on the SRBs that caused the accident. There was too much pressure applied given previous aborts to the mission, especially with the Teacher in Space program making the mission more high profile than usual.
With Columbia they had 20 years of data that showed tiles missing and various damage caused to the Orbiters by foam debris. The whole design was a ticking time bomb but again the risk was thought to be acceptable - until the day of the inevitable accident.
"In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the Earth."
George W Bush, addressing the nation on the day of the Columbia tragedy.
Even to those involved, it had become routine, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. This IS rocket science.
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
50.2754% for the Tories (8,357,468/16,623,367), 50.2682% for Labour (5,013,580/9,973,660). Calculated as the sum of the votes for the winning party divided by the turnout, rather than an average of the percentages which doesn't account for varying constituency size.
The change from 2010 probably tells us something, but I'm not sure what. Fewer marginals going forward, perhaps?
I suspect that's a function of the third-party vote in marginals being squeezed?
Mr. Dair, a majority of the vote in the referendum was for Scotland to remain within the UK.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
No - a plurality of those who voted in just over half of constituencies voted for a Conservative to be their MP. A majority of voters in many Conservative constituencies did not vote for a Conservative. (Off hand, does anyone know what % vote share each party has in just those constituencies it won?)
In 2010 Labour got 46.4% in it's winning constituencies and the Tories got 48.2%.
50.2754% for the Tories (8,357,468/16,623,367), 50.2682% for Labour (5,013,580/9,973,660). Calculated as the sum of the votes for the winning party divided by the turnout, rather than an average of the percentages which doesn't account for varying constituency size.
The change from 2010 probably tells us something, but I'm not sure what. Fewer marginals going forward, perhaps?
I'm suprised, I suspected the SNP tsunami would have wiped out some high winning margin Labour seats.
I've just finished my civic responsibility and completed my tax returns and in so doing have done my bit in paying off the national debt. I can't believe I'm going to have to do this every three months.....it's he least desirable thing I do every year, and I do some very unpleasant things..
Matthew Holehouse Corbyn tells Morning Star labour is working on new pledge to "break up" newspapers after "horrendous" coverage https://t.co/PhYCT264Ti
It's worth following his link.
Corbyn said he thought "the media's attitude to the Labour Party and our campaign has been horrendous". Can't argue with that.
Asked whether a Labour Government would break up media monopolies he replied "Yes - we are developing a media policy which would be about breaking up single ownership of too many sources of information so we have a multiplicity of sources." Sounds sensible to me. I assume he means private ownership.
What he actually said is quite different from Matthew Holehouse tweet of Corbyn's "new pledge to break up newspapers after horrendous coverage".
If I set up my own newspaper, invest in the staff and printing equipment myself and it becomes popular through consumer choice alone. (If you don't like it don't buy it) Then it is surely an authoritarian overreach for a state to forcefully break up my corporation, is it not?
Yes - but if you buy up competitors across all media, put pressure on the government to favour you based on fear of your media power, use your media power to pursue your own political agenda as a foreigner,- then it is not authoritarian overreach for an elected government to limit your power. They have a duty to.
Do you agree with anti-monopoly legislation?
You are seriously deluded. In year 2000 the sun had a circulation of 3,557,336, in November it had just 1,788,866. This is excluding bulks but the decline is across the board. In year 2000 the times had a circulation of 726,349, in November it has just 407,566. This is again excluding bulks but also the sunday times. [Sources from the Press Gazette]
A corporate player in an industry being technologically made redundant to the extent that all players are in terminal decline is in no need of competition law interference. Also I voted UKIP in May but I fail to see the relevance of him being foreign, you come across as quite xenophobic. Monopolies are bad when they create abnormal profits but in this case newspapers are dying and internet media is hard to monetise & you compete globally.
I've just finished my civic responsibility and completed my tax returns and in so doing have done my bit in paying off the national debt. I can't believe I'm going to have to do this every three months.....it's he least desirable thing I do every year, and I do some very unpleasant things..
Comments
At least you seem to have given up on the spurious argument that abandoning tolls somehow damaged the bridge. So perhaps we are making some progress.
Would have been more impressive if it had actually been recovered from splashdown though! (I suspect being dunked in a salt water tank doesn't cause anything like the same stress.)
Trouble is I don't think this is about making it easier for us to know more about what is going on. I suspect that it is about (a) attacking Murdoch; (b) imposing some form of state regulation of the press; and (c) controlling or limiting criticism of Labour.
I would like to be proved wrong but- based on how Labour has behaved over Leveson and MPs more generally - I'm afraid I trust politicians with regard to press freedom about as much as I would trust IS to follow the Geneva Convention in relation to POWs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSztpzD_JjQ
Greenpeace would have a heart attack if this thing was ever made and launched !
I guess you failed to comprehend why I pointed out the very real consideration parties have to make in coalition about what is acceptable to their own voters when they agree a coalition deal.
But then the truth is, like all FPTP defenders, your only real argument is that it gives Tory governments at least half the time. Logic and the coherence of your argument will always be irrelevant to you.
[Besides which, Saladin accepted the surrender of a few hundred Templars, promising their lives, then killed them all out of hand].
Mr. Pulpstar, the ancient Greeks had both railways and steam power. But they used the steam power for little toys, and the railways were drawn by oxen.
It's just that on occasion, killing prisoners (or refusing to take prisoners) made more sense.
The current cost of the launch is around $60m for a five-ton payload, SpaceX want to see that drastically reduced in future.
http://aviationweek.com/blog/nasa-cnes-warn-spacex-challenges-flying-reusable-falcon-9-rocket
That's less than 0.5%.
Just because something is popular there is no reason to believe it is the right thing to do. The last type of government you want is a popular one dishing out popular policies. What you need is a good government and one that has the long term interests paramount. One that takes popular and unpopular decisions.
I can't remember one of those.
Most UK constituencies voted for a Conservative MP, so they formed the government. It's not rocket science.
Common soldiers, who couldn't expect to be ransomed (although it sometimes happened) often did kill noble and knightly prisoners, but quite often they had an eye to profit as well (the King of Scotland was captured by an archer at Neville's Cross, who received a reward of £1,000 from Edward III).
I've just checked on Wiki. The Saturn V had 34,020 kN of thrust. The Falcon 9 Heavy will have 17,615 kN.
As I said earlier, this was just the first test. They have to:
1) Land reliably.
2) Learn how to refurbish the stage and/or its components;
3) Prove that such reused stages can fly reliably.
4) Do this at less cost than building a new rocket.
The important thing for them will be to learn from their mistakes / problems and ensure they do not happen again. Something NASA's been very poor at - the Rogers report into the Challenger tragedy should be required reading for engineers of any discipline. In particular, Feynman's comments should be noted by any organisation where lives are at risk, especially about risk management.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016/pdf/GPO-CRPT-99hrpt1016.pdf
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/slab-murphy-and-gang-betrayed-by-prosecution-says-source-1.2474317?utm_source=morning_digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_digest
I imagine that today's rocket will be getting a very detailled strip-down rather than a tow to the fuel pump though, but it's still an amazing achievement. A good day for science and engineering
Edit: The Challenger report makes very sobering reading indeed. Worse is the Columbia report, which is scathing around the fact that the required lessons to be leaned from Challenger still hadn't got through to NASA and its partners 15 years later.
RIP fourteen good man and women.
http://caib1.nasa.gov/
If the voters in a given part of the country - be it a part of the country as large as Scotland or as small as part of Brighton & Hove - chose to delegate the decision of PM to the rest of the country, that's their decision.
Even in the large part of the country that is Scotland, at least 434,097 people voted for David Cameron to be PM.
Incidentally, I hope anyone even tangentially involved with software has heard of Therac-25?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.96.369&rep=rep1&type=pdf
You do realise you are trying to defend FPTP by talking about Proportional shares now?
Comical stuff.
I don't need to be an apologist for FPTP. It's our voting system, endorsed as such by a decisive majority in a referendum. I know you struggle with this concept, but there you go.
@HTScotPol: Freight Transport Association on partial re-opening of Forth Road Bridge https://t.co/CVqUsbG5Pz https://t.co/9AfZThEcDS
Nothing about their argument can be logical or coherent because it's utter nonsense to start with. It's effectively "FPTP is best because Reasons".
Why the tories could lose in 2020. House prices rising 5% a year. Rentals the same.
Lethal.
tl:dr - Every prior shuttle mission had tiles fall off and damage was frequent. It was only a matter of time until fatal damage to the tiles occurred.
Therac-25 - hell yes. Luckily I don't work with software where bugs kill people, but it's a very real-world example of the need for a level of QA commensurate with the use of the product. If you're writing software for use in critical systems like transport or medicine, you need both simple code and a LOT of testing.
http://adriankavanaghelections.org/2015/12/21/constituency-level-analyses-of-national-opinion-polls-carried-out-during-2015-a-review/
In particular, take a look at the first table (Dáil-seat level estimates produced for each poll). The bottom line is that Fine Gael continues to make progress, and Labour might just be getting enough of a boost to get them out of the dead zone where they hold almost no seats. An FG minority or an FG-Lab coalition still look the best bets to me.
One word of caution: there seems to be a discrepancy between the seat estimates for the 13 Dec ST-BA poll and his original article on that poll:
http://adriankavanaghelections.org/2015/12/13/tidings-of-joy-for-the-government-parties-constituency-level-analysis-of-the-sunday-times-behaviour-attitiudes-opinion-poll-13th-december-2015/
Do you agree with anti-monopoly legislation?
Just to note the disproportionate number of fruitcakes who reside here on PB.
The same for the reach of Sky News and other broadcasting.
If there is a monopoly in boardcasting then the only one is the BBC.
Instead, they should have been saying: "Holy cr@p. We've got recurring problems, and we've been lucky. Let's fix it."
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/679290915089960961
I thought it was monthly/X is away stuff.
So basically "we hate you because you invaded a muslim state and we hate you because you didn't invade a muslim state".
The Nazis celebrated Christmas with chocolate SS men and swastika-shaped tree lights. (Via: https://t.co/4tkyCjuv8k)
With Challenger they should have aborted given the unknown effect of the sub-zero temperatures on a whole load of systems, especially but not solely the O-rings on the SRBs that caused the accident. There was too much pressure applied given previous aborts to the mission, especially with the Teacher in Space program making the mission more high profile than usual.
With Columbia they had 20 years of data that showed tiles missing and various damage caused to the Orbiters by foam debris. The whole design was a ticking time bomb but again the risk was thought to be acceptable - until the day of the inevitable accident. George W Bush, addressing the nation on the day of the Columbia tragedy.
Even to those involved, it had become routine, when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. This IS rocket science.
I can't believe I'm going to have to do this every three months.....it's he least desirable thing I do every year, and I do some very unpleasant things..
In year 2000 the sun had a circulation of 3,557,336, in November it had just 1,788,866. This is excluding bulks but the decline is across the board.
In year 2000 the times had a circulation of 726,349, in November it has just 407,566. This is again excluding bulks but also the sunday times. [Sources from the Press Gazette]
A corporate player in an industry being technologically made redundant to the extent that all players are in terminal decline is in no need of competition law interference.
Also I voted UKIP in May but I fail to see the relevance of him being foreign, you come across as quite xenophobic.
Monopolies are bad when they create abnormal profits but in this case newspapers are dying and internet media is hard to monetise & you compete globally.
Is easy to recognise thick people, they support PR.