How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
I'm having difficulty with the treble negatives, but aren't you referring to Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket speech in 1967?
Indeed I am , a speech which was criticised by Conservatives at the time but which today's Conservatives seem to believe .
the job at the Old Lady is definitely yours for the taking
[snip]... Down to about 1996 it would actually have been quite easy. Now due to the devastation of agriculture under Blair (which was definitely not the EU's fault although it did many things that didn't help) ... [snip]
I was intrigued by that comment. However, even though I don't exactly qualify as a great fan of the Blair government, and especially not of the disastrous introduction of the Rural Payments Agency under his watch, I couldn't see in the statistics any marked devastation attributable to the Blair years specifically:
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
If we have no idea what the government's policy is, why are you so confident that hard Brexit isn't it?
More to the point, mightn't they deign to let the electorate know?
Because nobody in their right mind would opt for hard brexit as their first choice (cue the inevitable names)
Why would they let their position be known at this stage? These are negotiations.
There is no basis for a second referendum whatever.
There is precisely the same "basis" for a second referendum as there was for the first one
That's not quite true. Cameron's Conservatives were elected in 2015 on a mandate to deliver one (whether they intended to or not). Almost nobody has been returned to parliament on that mandate at the 2017 election.
Cameron was elected in 2015 on 36.9% of the national vote. Hardly a mandate for all the destruction that Brexit is bringing.
The mandate was delivered in the vote itself, though of course I would never expect a Lib Dem to respect democracy.
LibDems are particularly keen on democracy, since they alone argue for the final decision as to the nation's future to be put to a popular vote, once the detail of the deal and the ex-EU future that may await us becomes clear.
What should the question in a second referendum be?
Deal or Status Quo
I think that it would be deal or no deal i.e. Rock Hard Brexit. In practice, I think that these will barely be distinguishable, so little point.
But what is the 'deal'? We are led to believe that this will comprise the financial settlement plus a transitional arrangement. The final deal will only emerge as a FTA some years after 2019. A transitional deal is surely not an adequate basis for a second referendum.
I could envisage a scenario where the negotiations break down or the ratification fails. In such circumstances we would be set to crash out onto WTO trading. This would be presented as apocalyptic and the people may then be asked in a referendum EITHER give up and remain OR leave in chaos.
And at that point Leave would simply point out tat all those Osborne scare stories about what would happen simply by voting Brexit turned out to be utter rubbish and would make sure peple thought the same about Remain claims in a second referendum.
Remain cried wolf and still lost. If you really think they will be believed in a second referendum then you have been eating the wrong mushrooms again.
A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
The risk of breakdown is real. To go to your other question, what does the EU want? It wants above all to maintain its integrity and the value of its membership. Which means most of what is useful about the EU comes through membership and is not available to outsiders like us. In a lose/lose situation it also wants as much of the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the other side (ie us) and not them. Despite all that, the EU does want a deal with the UK.
Our problem is the Leave promise of separation with continuity, which is undeliverable. Any Brexit will be massively compromised as we scramble to maintain continuity. The alternatives to a compromised Brexit are a failed Brexit and no Brexit at all. The EU is operating on the assumption that our side will act rationally, that clearly almost any deal is better than no deal at all. Thing is, we're struggling to resolve the contradictions of our programme. None of our people seems able to negotiate, rationally or not, and say, accept this, reject that, propose this, change that.
Now, "better than nothing; less than what we had before" is a big negotiating space. It really shouldn't be difficult to work out something that falls into that gap. I think the compromised Brexit is mostly likely to happen with a small possibility of no Brexit at all and a somewhat larger possibility of a failed Brexit. The prospect of a failed Brexit is what would drive the no Brexit option.
How do you defined a failed Brexit? Is that no deal?
Of course @MarkSenior doesn't understand how floating currencies work. He lives in a world of autarkies.
I suppose the world of LD parish council by elections is much like an autarky.
I can remember the time when Conservatives did not believe that devaluation meant that it did not mean the £ in your pocket was not affected . nowadays Conservatives are the party of devaluation and think it is a panacea .
I'm having difficulty with the treble negatives, but aren't you referring to Harold Wilson's pound in your pocket speech in 1967?
Indeed I am , a speech which was criticised by Conservatives at the time but which today's Conservatives seem to believe .
Well yes, it was laughed out of court if I recall correctly. But there is a difference. As was pointed out above, we now live in with floating exchange rates, which means that the value of a currency is determined by other fundamental factors, whereas then exchange rates were normally fixed to the dollar except when a policy decision was made to devalue the currency, as Callaghan and Wilson did fifty years ago.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Our government has a policy of no Eurppean Court, no Single Market and no Customs Union, or is as far as we can tell! Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
I think we're quite lucky you don't work in medical research.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
Our government has a policy of no Eurppean Court, no Single Market and no Customs Union, or is as far as we can tell! Sounds like hard Brexit to me.
Think we would quite like to stay in the single market to be honest, not going to happen though.
Why we would want to stay in the other two is beyond me.
Sort of on topic, when do PB'ers think we will actually know if we have an exit agreement with the EU? I presume it has to be 6 months or so before 30 March 2019 so that the EU 27 governments (and our parliament!) can ratify it? So 30 September 2018?
Do we expect that it will just be speculation, rumour, EU spin, cabinet leak and counter-leak all the way until then? I am not sure I can stand another 13 months of this tbh
I don't think we're going to have one. That Simon Nixon article in the Times crystallised the issue: it's either WTO Brexit or an extension of the existing arrangements, and I think we're not going to get the latter past the EC, EU27 and the EP in time (esp. the EP). Happy to be found wrong, but I suspect the UK has screwed the pooch on this one, and given their adherence to "failing and blaming", I assume the Brexiteers will not care one jot.
The link is sadly paywalled.
Hard Brexit is the default, it is our governments policy, it is EU policy. The clock is ticking without any real preparation for WTO Brexit.
Why people think that it is not going to happen escapes me.
I do not for one minute think hard Brexit is our governments policy, though the ridiculous demands of the EU makes me think it may well be that of the EU.
Again, you have no idea what our governments policy is, nor do you know if there is any real preparation for WTO brexit. It's supposition and once again you believe what you want to believe.
Having said that, I do agree with you that WTO brexit is the most likely scenario, but it will be no fault of ours.
If we have no idea what the government's policy is, why are you so confident that hard Brexit isn't it?
More to the point, mightn't they deign to let the electorate know?
Because nobody in their right mind would opt for hard brexit as their first choice (cue the inevitable names)
Why would they let their position be known at this stage? These are negotiations.
No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told.
Britain was updated on aims throughout the Second World War. Unless you believe that the current negotiations are more hostile than that, the government can give us a clue or two.
@EdConwaySky: Odd. That shocking statistic of Carney’s today (UK biz investment in 2020 will be 20% lower due to Brexit) wasn’t in the Inf Report itself
Britain was updated on aims throughout the Second World War. Unless you believe that the current negotiations are more hostile than that, the government can give us a clue or two.
Theresa May's Lancaster House speech was entirely clear.
There's much more uncertainty and nonsense on the other side, which initially claimed we couldn't even start talking about a long-term relationship until after we'd left, then claimed we couldn't talk about it until we'd largely agreed exit terms and a humongous bill before knowing what we'd be exiting to. Fortunately they seem to have abandoned both of these bonkers positions but it's still completely unclear whether they want a trade deal or not, whereas the UK position is completely clear: we do.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
We don't need to amend it, our EU friends have already illustrated the truth of the original statement by their opening position of a deal whereby we pay them €60bn+ for nothing in return.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
We don't need to amend it, our EU friends have already illustrated the truth of the original statement by their opening position of a deal whereby we pay them €60bn+ for nothing in return.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
Exclusive: Britain should introduce UK-only passport lanes in response to queues in Europe, minister says
The minister told The Daily Telegraph: "One wonders if this isn't just subterfuge from EU members states, if they aren't just trying to give us a warning that this is something that's in store for us..."
Britain was updated on aims throughout the Second World War. Unless you believe that the current negotiations are more hostile than that, the government can give us a clue or two.
Theresa May's Lancaster House speech was entirely clear.
There's much more uncertainty and nonsense on the other side, which initially claimed we couldn't even start talking about a long-term relationship until after we'd left, then claimed we couldn't talk about it until we'd largely agreed exit terms and a humongous bill before knowing what we'd be exiting to. Fortunately they seem to have abandoned both of these bonkers positions but it's still completely unclear whether they want a trade deal or not, whereas the UK position is completely clear: we do.
On terms which it knows are unacceptable to the other side.
Both sides are pretty bonkers (though the British side currently has the edge on moon-howling). The idiocy of the EU side doesn't make me any more optimistic that a deal will be reached and I'm unclear why Brexiters think that's a good sign.
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
A very risky strategy for the EU. They are already placing the blame for the forthcoming failure of talks on the British side. However, if voters do not believe them (and so far their demands have veered from the unreasonable to the utterly ridiculous - I can easily see them being blamed for a breakdown despite the current state of affairs) then the very strong likelihood would be for a Hard Brexit which would cause them significant economic and political damage too.
The risk of breakdown is real. To go to your other question, what does the EU want? It wants above all to maintain its integrity and the value of its membership. Which means most of what is useful about the EU comes through membership and is not available to outsiders like us. In a lose/lose situation it also wants as much of the inevitable damage of Brexit to fall on the other side (ie us) and not them. Despite all that, the EU does want a deal with the UK.
Our problem is the Leave promise of separation with continuity, which is undeliverable. Any Brexit will be massively compromised as we scramble to maintain continuity. The alternatives to a compromised Brexit are a failed Brexit and no Brexit at all. The EU is operating on the assumption that our side will act rationally, that clearly almost any deal is better than no deal at all. Thing is, we're struggling to resolve the contradictions of our programme. None of our people seems able to negotiate, rationally or not, and say, accept this, reject that, propose this, change that.
Now, "better than nothing; less than what we had before" is a big negotiating space. It really shouldn't be difficult to work out something that falls into that gap. I think the compromised Brexit is mostly likely to happen with a small possibility of no Brexit at all and a somewhat larger possibility of a failed Brexit. The prospect of a failed Brexit is what would drive the no Brexit option.
How do you defined a failed Brexit? Is that no deal?
It would be a Brexit where people who are not intrinsically opposed to leaving the EU feel the UK and in particular the government had screwed up and failed to deliver a workable solution. People have an expectation of lifestyles. Higher unemployment, squeeze on welfare etc will bite the government. This worries those trying to make leaving the EU work, so they will attempt to mitigate by retaining continuity (hence Hammond's "transition" moves) but in doing so, they compromise the project in ways that not everyone accepts (Fox etc).
There will be a deal of some kind just to keep the essentials going, if nothing else. But "no deal" isn't a resolution. At some point the UK will need to sort out a relationship with the rest of the continent it is a part of, and which represents half its trade. The EU won't be any easier to deal with later.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
I have argued on here before that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is true by definition - if we are playing deal vs no deal, and the deal on offer is so bad that it is worse than no deal at all, then that is a bad deal. So bad that we prefer no deal.
And if anybody were to claim that, even hypothetically, there is no such deal (that is, Britain's position is so much better by reaching a deal with the EU than not, that no potential deal on offer could possibly be worse than no-deal) then just imagine an £X billion "divorce bill" and increase the value of X until you hit the point where the costs outweigh the benefits. Clearly a "deal that is worse than no-deal" is a theoretical possibility, though I hope no negotiators view that as a challenge to see if they can conjure one into life.
The vast majority of potential deals are better than the no-deal state, but it doesn't make any sense (either logically - or as a bargaining position) to claim that any deal must be preferable to none.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
Now, "better than nothing; less than what we had before" is a big negotiating space.
But, but, but, we were told better than we had before...
That's the problem. "Better than nothing; less than what we had before" is the rational outcome that gives something to both sides - as long as you accept there is no choice about Brexit.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
I would also recommend having at least two monitors if you are doing a lot of work from multiple documents, so that you have enough screen real estate to have all the documents up side by side (especially if you are cut and pasting from several documents into one).
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
I have argued on here before that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is true by definition - if we are playing deal vs no deal, and the deal on offer is so bad that it is worse than no deal at all, then that is a bad deal. So bad that we prefer no deal.
And if anybody were to claim that, even hypothetically, there is no such deal (that is, Britain's position is so much better by reaching a deal with the EU than not, that no potential deal on offer could possibly be worse than no-deal) then just imagine an £X billion "divorce bill" and increase the value of X until you hit the point where the costs outweigh the benefits. Clearly a "deal that is worse than no-deal" is a theoretical possibility, though I hope no negotiators view that as a challenge to see if they can conjure one into life.
The vast majority of potential deals are better than the no-deal state, but it doesn't make any sense (either logically - or as a bargaining position) to claim that any deal must be preferable to none.
I was arguing the general 'deal' case, rather than the Brexit one. If 'no deal' represented a painful death for everyone and everything in existence, it might just be the worst deal ...
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
How do you defined a failed Brexit? Is that no deal?
It would be a Brexit where people who are not intrinsically opposed to leaving the EU feel the UK and in particular the government had screwed up and failed to deliver a workable solution. People have an expectation of lifestyles. Higher unemployment, squeeze on welfare etc will bite the government. This worries those trying to make leaving the EU work, so they will attempt to mitigate by retaining continuity (hence Hammond's "transition" moves) but in doing so, they compromise the project in ways that not everyone accepts (Fox etc).
There will be a deal of some kind just to keep the essentials going, if nothing else. But "no deal" isn't a resolution. At some point the UK will need to sort out a relationship with the rest of the continent it is a part of, and which represents half its trade. The EU won't be any easier to deal with later.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
My recommendation in your case is simple: buy another Mac. As you are familiar with Macs, the learning curve will be small and IMHO that outweighs any advantages of another choice. They are pricey but I think you can cover it.
Failing that, below I list three options for a cheap-but-sufficient laptop. If your budget is limited these are better options.
OPTION 1: GET A RECONDITIONED LAPTOP ========================= If you google "reconditioned laptops" and your postcode, it'll list suppliers near you. This is the cheap option.
OPTION 2: GO TO ARGOS =============== This Windows 10 laptop http://www.argos.co.uk/product/6548016 comes with a year's subscription to Office 365, the rental version of Office, so you will have things like Excel and Word. Or buy another laptop and get Office Home and Student 2016 (http://www.argos.co.uk/product/4552822 ), the purchase-once version of Office, and instal it.
OPTION 3: GO TO DELL ============== Go to the Dell store, click on "for work", click on "laptop", click on "Latitude", click on "Latitude 3180", click on "customise", click on "Microsoft Office Home and Business", then buy it. This link may help (http://www.dell.com/uk/business/p/latitude-11-3180-laptop/pd?ref=PD_OC ).
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
There's a big market for confident lunatics. If the last two years have shown us anything, it's that.
The threads on here?
Harder evidence comes from the success in procuring votes by pandering to xenophobia.
I'm sick to death of the supposed elites like you accusing ordinary people of xenophobia because they voted to Leave.
From my personal point of view the first thing I would do when we finally defy Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Don Helder is hold an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Let's start with a clean slate and have an immigration policy that works for everyone.
As I've said before I voted against my own narrow self interest when I voted Leave, instead I voted for the long term future of my daughters and my grandkids.
And I can't be having all this bullshit that we older people have ruined it for the younger generation. I was part of the young generation that voted to join in 1975, we were lied to then and we have been lied to ever since.
I voted Leave for the good of the younger generation, not for myself and not because I am xenophobic.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
In this case their ware is an undefined object called Brexit. We've already committed to buying it no matter what, and only now are we negotiating the design and price.
The Grand Jury subpoenas are a notable marker (in fact this move was kicked off a bit back) but news is out to pre-empt Trump trying to rid of the chief investigator.
This is, however is just a marker, worse for Trump is to come. Much worse on many fronts.
As a note, Carter Page, advisor and general embarassment was involved with a Russian Intelligence network busted by the FBI. Other people in the Trump orbit are subject to serious thumbscrews on their dealings that will result in some turning grass.
As for Nigel Farage, I posted a few months back that he should be careful who's wagon he got hitched to. Yesterdays man will, in time be revealed to be anything but the uber Brit.
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
There's a big market for confident lunatics. If the last two years have shown us anything, it's that.
The threads on here?
Harder evidence comes from the success in procuring votes by pandering to xenophobia.
I'm sick to death of the supposed elites like you accusing ordinary people of xenophobia because they voted to Leave.
From my personal point of view the first thing I would do when we finally defy Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Don Helder is hold an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Let's start with a clean slate and have an immigration policy that works for everyone.
As I've said before I voted against my own narrow self interest when I voted Leave, instead I voted for the long term future of my daughters and my grandkids.
And I can't be having all this bullshit that we older people have ruined it for the younger generation. I was part of the young generation that voted to join in 1975, we were lied to then and we have been lied to ever since.
I voted Leave for the good of the younger generation, not for myself and not because I am xenophobic.
Rant over, that's me done for the night.
Your rant is over but the vote was still won by pandering to xenophobia. We will all live with the consequences for decades.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
Thanks to all for your helpful computer suggestions.
I shall look into them.
My aim one day is to give talks without any presentations at all (I already reduce them to bare bones with barely any links to what I am saying) - like AJP Taylor - just a gripping and beautifully thought through and spoken tale, leaving the listener with much to think about.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
It's not how it works in this case. It's a divorce where one party is running the risk of losing their share of the house and access to their children. Perhaps all available deals are so bad it's worth giving up on those things, but it isn't a recipe for negotiating success to start out from that position. A better way for that kind of negotiation is to offer the other side something that is valuable to them - offer to look after the children during the holidays for example - and then set out your requirements.
As for Nigel Farage, I posted a few months back that he should be careful who's wagon he got hitched to. Yesterdays man will, in time be revealed to be anything but the uber Brit.
If Farage or any other major figure in the Eurosceptic movement were proven to be compromised by links with Russian intelligence, that really would be a game changer.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Surely, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' is a truism, except in the singular circumstance in which no deal is the worst deal, i.e. where no deal is the bad deal.
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
I have argued on here before that "no deal is better than a bad deal" is true by definition - if we are playing deal vs no deal, and the deal on offer is so bad that it is worse than no deal at all, then that is a bad deal. So bad that we prefer no deal.
And if anybody were to claim that, even hypothetically, there is no such deal (that is, Britain's position is so much better by reaching a deal with the EU than not, that no potential deal on offer could possibly be worse than no-deal) then just imagine an £X billion "divorce bill" and increase the value of X until you hit the point where the costs outweigh the benefits. Clearly a "deal that is worse than no-deal" is a theoretical possibility, though I hope no negotiators view that as a challenge to see if they can conjure one into life.
The vast majority of potential deals are better than the no-deal state, but it doesn't make any sense (either logically - or as a bargaining position) to claim that any deal must be preferable to none.
I was arguing the general 'deal' case, rather than the Brexit one. If 'no deal' represented a painful death for everyone and everything in existence, it might just be the worst deal ...
The first paragraph was intended to be general. And the second can be extended easily enough... "no deal" may represent a painful death for everyone, but if "deal" was to have a longer and even more painful death, then the deal is, by definition, "bad", and is indeed worse than "no deal". We just need to let "X" represent the duration and painfulness of death, then crank up the value of X until the argument applies...
(The generality I am relying upon is that "no deal" is a state that is a default state known to both parties, which is reverted to if the negotiations fail to reach agreement. If we accept that premise, I think the argument is completely general. In real life perhaps this does not hold - if the harm of "no deal" cannot be known at this stage because one of the parties has the capacity to make the "no deal" state more damaging to the other, for example, and we do not know if they will exercise this capacity.)
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
Thanks to all for your helpful computer suggestions.
I shall look into them.
My aim one day is to give talks without any presentations at all (I already reduce them to bare bones with barely any links to what I am saying) - like AJP Taylor - just a gripping and beautifully thought through and spoken tale, leaving the listener with much to think about.
One day.
That's my direction too. Studying storytelling, fables and parables. Just bought Aesop's Fables again, precisely to study the short story/moral of the tale format.
However, I'm finding some people just require the visual stuff too. So I tend to do the story up front, then back fill with some slides.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
I note your inability to identify such terms and move on.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
In this case their ware is an undefined object called Brexit. We've already committed to buying it no matter what, and only now are we negotiating the design and price.
Rubbish. What they have to "sell" is easy access to their single market. For us to appear to be gagging for that simply puts the price up.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
I note your inability to identify such terms and move on.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
I note your inability to identify such terms and move on.
You really are a pompous twat
Probably. But you still haven't managed to identify a plausible not bad Brexit. So I remain unimpressed.
Thanks to all for your helpful computer suggestions.
I shall look into them.
My aim one day is to give talks without any presentations at all (I already reduce them to bare bones with barely any links to what I am saying) - like AJP Taylor - just a gripping and beautifully thought through and spoken tale, leaving the listener with much to think about.
One day.
That's my direction too. Studying storytelling, fables and parables. Just bought Aesop's Fables again, precisely to study the short story/moral of the tale format.
However, I'm finding some people just require the visual stuff too. So I tend to do the story up front, then back fill with some slides.
Yup - me too. But years ago I was told that the last thing you want is people reading the slides because (1) people read faster than you can talk and (2) if they're reading they're not listening to you. So I tend to have a few words or drawings which go up when I want them to.
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
And if we aren't, we damn well should be.
It is surprising how poor most people, even quite senior people, are at communicating in an interesting, memorable let alone inspirational way.
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
I would also recommend having at least two monitors if you are doing a lot of work from multiple documents, so that you have enough screen real estate to have all the documents up side by side (especially if you are cut and pasting from several documents into one).
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
Definitely agree on multiple monitor setup, one accountant client couldn't believe how much more productive the second screen made him. Also there's some large hi-res screens out there now, LG make a curved one at 34" and 3440x1440 resolution which works like four traditional screens! http://www.lg.com/us/business/commercial-display/it-products/desktop-monitors/lg-34UC87M-B
On 'Cloud' backup, it depends very much on what you've got, who needs to get access to it and the consequences for either loss of the data or it falling into someone's hands. Most companies now encrypt data on your machine, so their servers never see the plain copy, and I'd always recommend for this sort of service a company for whom it's their main line of business - so Dropbox or Carbonite rather than Microsoft or Google, for example. Another way of doing 'Cloud' storage is to use an email account that everyone who needs the data has access to.
Feel free to PM me if you've got more specific questions.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
I note your inability to identify such terms and move on.
You really are a pompous twat
Probably. But you still haven't managed to identify a plausible not bad Brexit. So I remain unimpressed.
as if you've ever been impressionable post prep school
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
"aren't looking for a bad deal" is probably more accurate for most, for me certainly.
I'd be more impressed if the simpletons who come out with such lines could define a good deal that is remotely plausible.
I'll take the simpletons jibe on the chin as it comes from someone so obviously eminent. However the benchmark is around a bad deal not a good one - there is lots of wriggle room between the two.
I note your inability to identify such terms and move on.
You really are a pompous twat
He was such a nice person when he was "AntiFrank"... Brexit has twisted his mind sadly.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
LOL! Very true about the tea, and they get very offended if you don't want to waste half an hour sit down with them as they work out how gullible you are.
Thanks to all for your helpful computer suggestions.
I shall look into them.
My aim one day is to give talks without any presentations at all (I already reduce them to bare bones with barely any links to what I am saying) - like AJP Taylor - just a gripping and beautifully thought through and spoken tale, leaving the listener with much to think about.
One day.
That's my direction too. Studying storytelling, fables and parables. Just bought Aesop's Fables again, precisely to study the short story/moral of the tale format.
However, I'm finding some people just require the visual stuff too. So I tend to do the story up front, then back fill with some slides.
I think that you have to be wary of learning styles. This is a word based forum so biased to writing as a form of communication, compared with aural, visual and kinesthetc learning. Most people can manage different learning styles but have a preferred style. Indeed one can !make the case that leaning to digest information boringly presented is a skill in itself!
I am quite a fan of non linear presentations like Prezi that, once built T can be given to many audiences at different levels but are never the same, and the narrative can move flexibly.
The Grand Jury subpoenas are a notable marker (in fact this move was kicked off a bit back) but news is out to pre-empt Trump trying to rid of the chief investigator.
This is, however is just a marker, worse for Trump is to come. Much worse on many fronts.
As a note, Carter Page, advisor and general embarassment was involved with a Russian Intelligence network busted by the FBI. Other people in the Trump orbit are subject to serious thumbscrews on their dealings that will result in some turning grass.
As for Nigel Farage, I posted a few months back that he should be careful who's wagon he got hitched to. Yesterdays man will, in time be revealed to be anything but the uber Brit.
Interesting thread on Twitter about how appearing before a Grand Jury can sometimes cause sensible, rational people to commit other offences (perjury et al) as a result of their appearance.
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
Storytelling can indeed be moving, persuasive and inspirational.
But in recognition of that power, my mind seems to revolt against it. If, for example, a story has a nice moral clarity to it, and the moral of the story "conveniently" happens to fit what the the speaker intended to convey, it makes me wonder just how many alternative tales could have been spun with the contrary objective in mind. For that reason alone, I find it hard to justify using a story to reach a conclusion. (I won't deny that stories and anecdotes win out over data for memorability.)
I associate "storytelling" with the same bag of tricks as "playing emotive music when trying to make me feel sad about something" - it leaves me with a sense I am being manipulated in some way, which is uncomfortable for me.
I'd rather be faced with a wall of facts. Preferably hard statistics, if relevant (with graphs showing long-run trends, with averages fleshed out by confidence intervals and so on). And I know these can be selectively presented too, but I generally trust my judgment as to whether someone is trying to pull wool over my eyes with them.
Bloody hell, lightning does strike twice. If I were at home I could see that building from my living room window. Sounds like everyone got out from early reports, they may have shit for cladding but they also have good alarm systems and ventilated stairwells.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
LOL! Very true about the tea, and they get very offended if you don't want to waste half an hour sit down with them as they work out how gullible you are.
There is a vast chasm of difference between negotiating a one off transaction, and an ongoing relationship. Do we want a one night stand? Or a long term co operative relationship. Very different negotiations are needed for these.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
LOL! Very true about the tea, and they get very offended if you don't want to waste half an hour sit down with them as they work out how gullible you are.
There is a vast chasm of difference between negotiating a one off transaction, and an ongoing relationship. Do we want a one night stand? Or a long term co operative relationship. Very different negotiations are needed for these.
We are not buying a carpet in a souk.
I agree we're not buying a carpet when we leave the EU.
We want a long term relationship rather than a one night stand, but the EU are acting more like a hooker rather than a potential wife at this stage.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
They should be straightforward but the EU representatives are choosing not to make them straight forward and are engaging in abuse and general mud slinging. One hand cannot clap.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
And there is still no reason negotiations could not, for any of the end points on the spectrum of what could be the outcome, be straightforward.
I will admit that I had thought the EU would be more eager for a trade deal than they appear. It would be foolish not to adjust one's stance based on newer and clearer information. But once the EU's stance became clearer, I also argued that, with emotions high, a cool off period after exit and before negotiating the longer term deal, might be required in order for the two sides to be able to concentrate on outcomes for optimal mutual long-term interests (i.e. not to conflate the two events of negotiating the best mutual long-term trading and other relationship, and the EU need to make leaving unattractive).
How is it possible that just a few years ago Paul Joseph Watson was making videos on YouTube about UFOs, the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Conferences to an audience of something approximating two men and a dog, and yet now has audience of more than a million subscribers and almost a quarter of a billion views of his video uploads?
There's a big market for confident lunatics. If the last two years have shown us anything, it's that.
The threads on here?
Harder evidence comes from the success in procuring votes by pandering to xenophobia.
Only in the minds of the Eurofanatics like you.
You won with "Breaking Point" and "76 million Turks". The victory has to be implemented accordingly.
Nope we won on a wide ranging campaign and whilst I am not personally in favour of migration controls nor am I such an arrogant fuckwit as you to think that all those who want such controls are xenophobes or racists.
Controlling migration, whilst not something I am in favour of, does not equate with banning foreigners - except in the sick minds of the terminally bigoted like yourself.
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
I would also recommend having at least two monitors if you are doing a lot of work from multiple documents, so that you have enough screen real estate to have all the documents up side by side (especially if you are cut and pasting from several documents into one).
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
Definitely agree on multiple monitor setup, one accountant client couldn't believe how much more productive the second screen made him. Also there's some large hi-res screens out there now, LG make a curved one at 34" and 3440x1440 resolution which works like four traditional screens! http://www.lg.com/us/business/commercial-display/it-products/desktop-monitors/lg-34UC87M-B
On 'Cloud' backup, it depends very much on what you've got, who needs to get access to it and the consequences for either loss of the data or it falling into someone's hands. Most companies now encrypt data on your machine, so their servers never see the plain copy, and I'd always recommend for this sort of service a company for whom it's their main line of business - so Dropbox or Carbonite rather than Microsoft or Google, for example. Another way of doing 'Cloud' storage is to use an email account that everyone who needs the data has access to.
Feel free to PM me if you've got more specific questions.
I switched from a triple monitor setup to one of those. It is bloody brilliant.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
And there is still no reason negotiations could not, for any of the end points on the spectrum of what could be the outcome, be straightforward.
I will admit that I had thought the EU would be more eager for a trade deal than they appear. It would be foolish not to adjust one's stance based on newer and clearer information. But once the EU's stance became clearer, I also argued that, with emotions high, a cool off period after exit and before negotiating the longer term deal, might be required in order for the two sides to be able to concentrate on outcomes for optimal mutual long-term interests (i.e. not to conflate the two events of negotiating the best mutual long-term trading and other relationship, and the EU need to make leaving unattractive).
Given how aggressively you assailed me when I pointed out how slow EU trade deals were (arguing by authority to boot), I do consider an apology in order.
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
Storytelling can indeed be moving, persuasive and inspirational.
But in recognition of that power, my mind seems to revolt against it. If, for example, a story has a nice moral clarity to it, and the moral of the story "conveniently" happens to fit what the the speaker intended to convey, it makes me wonder just how many alternative tales could have been spun with the contrary objective in mind. For that reason alone, I find it hard to justify using a story to reach a conclusion. (I won't deny that stories and anecdotes win out over data for memorability.)
I associate "storytelling" with the same bag of tricks as "playing emotive music when trying to make me feel sad about something" - it leaves me with a sense I am being manipulated in some way, which is uncomfortable for me.
I'd rather be faced with a wall of facts. Preferably hard statistics, if relevant (with graphs showing long-run trends, with averages fleshed out by confidence intervals and so on). And I know these can be selectively presented too, but I generally trust my judgment as to whether someone is trying to pull wool over my eyes with them.
If you are trying to influence people, you have to use stories.
The reason is in the neuroscience. If you display facts, you engage the cortex, which is a critical, oppositional thought process, seeking to find what is wrong with the data. If you tell a story, you engage the limbic system, which seeks to find parallels from the listener's experience to retell the story in their own minds, thereby winning them to your point of view.
Britain Elects @britainelects 2m2 minutes ago More Labour GAIN Marine (Worthing) from Conservative.
That is a stunning result . Marine ward has never been won by any party but the Conservatives since it was created in 1983 and is the safest Worthing proper ward in the borough .
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
Storytelling can indeed be moving, persuasive and inspirational.
But in recognition of that power, my mind seems to revolt against it. If, for example, a story has a nice moral clarity to it, and the moral of the story "conveniently" happens to fit what the the speaker intended to convey, it makes me wonder just how many alternative tales could have been spun with the contrary objective in mind. For that reason alone, I find it hard to justify using a story to reach a conclusion. (I won't deny that stories and anecdotes win out over data for memorability.)
I associate "storytelling" with the same bag of tricks as "playing emotive music when trying to make me feel sad about something" - it leaves me with a sense I am being manipulated in some way, which is uncomfortable for me.
I'd rather be faced with a wall of facts. Preferably hard statistics, if relevant (with graphs showing long-run trends, with averages fleshed out by confidence intervals and so on). And I know these can be selectively presented too, but I generally trust my judgment as to whether someone is trying to pull wool over my eyes with them.
If you are trying to influence people, you have to use stories.
The reason is in the neuroscience. If you display facts, you engage the cortex, which is a critical, oppositional thought process, seeking to find what is wrong with the data. If you tell a story, you engage the limbic system, which seeks to find parallels from the listener's experience to retell the story in their own minds, thereby winning them to your point of view.
I'm somewhat aware of the science and as a general rule you are without doubt correct - I think part of the reason I recoil at it so much is that I am aware of what people are trying to do to me, and I object to my critical faculties being bypassed like so! I'm afraid I am a bloody hard person to persuade.
"No deal is better than a bad deal, we're told." You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
I think people who say "no deal is better than a bad deal" aren't looking for a deal.
Err no, they're looking for a good deal. It's called negotiation. Drop in to your local souk to see how it works.
In the local souk you have to profess interest in their wares. Expressing the hope that the market will be hit by an asteroid and that all the seller's children will be afflicted by scrofula doesn't tend to get a good deal.
Well there are many strategies, but feigning disinterest in their wares usually works better than professing interest.
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
And there is still no reason negotiations could not, for any of the end points on the spectrum of what could be the outcome, be straightforward.
I will admit that I had thought the EU would be more eager for a trade deal than they appear. It would be foolish not to adjust one's stance based on newer and clearer information. But once the EU's stance became clearer, I also argued that, with emotions high, a cool off period after exit and before negotiating the longer term deal, might be required in order for the two sides to be able to concentrate on outcomes for optimal mutual long-term interests (i.e. not to conflate the two events of negotiating the best mutual long-term trading and other relationship, and the EU need to make leaving unattractive).
Given how aggressively you assailed me when I pointed out how slow EU trade deals were (arguing by authority to boot), I do consider an apology in order.
If you are prepared to admit how ridiculously hysterical you were post referendum, and how insulting you were to anyone and everyone who disagreed with you, I'd more than happily do that. But to date, you seem unremorseful about your insults.
Britain Elects @britainelects 2m2 minutes ago More Labour GAIN Marine (Worthing) from Conservative.
That is a stunning result . Marine ward has never been won by any party but the Conservatives since it was created in 1983 and is the safest Worthing proper ward in the borough .
Unlike the city centre wards , there are very few students in this ward , the houses are mostly big and very pricey .
Be fair, Geoff. If you express interest, you are almost certain to leave having purchased more.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
18 months ago you were confidently, no aggressively, assuring me that the negotiations were going to be ridiculously straightforward. Forgive me if I take your latest advice with a degree of scepticism.
And there is still no reason negotiations could not, for any of the end points on the spectrum of what could be the outcome, be straightforward.
I will admit that I had thought the EU would be more eager for a trade deal than they appear. It would be foolish not to adjust one's stance based on newer and clearer information. But once the EU's stance became clearer, I also argued that, with emotions high, a cool off period after exit and before negotiating the longer term deal, might be required in order for the two sides to be able to concentrate on outcomes for optimal mutual long-term interests (i.e. not to conflate the two events of negotiating the best mutual long-term trading and other relationship, and the EU need to make leaving unattractive).
Given how aggressively you assailed me when I pointed out how slow EU trade deals were (arguing by authority to boot), I do consider an apology in order.
If you are prepared to admit how ridiculously hysterical you were post referendum, and how insulting you were to anyone and everyone who disagreed with you, I'd more than happily do that. But to date, you seem unremorseful about your insults.
So far the post-referendum debacle is working out much as I expected. I note that you accept that you were wrong in your initial, very aggressively-expressed, views, but feel unable to apologise for your behaviour. Oh well.
If I was an NFL fan I'd be stoked this evening - it's the Hall of Fame game, and Jerry Jones is being installed into the HOF. America's Team is playing the Cardinals.
In terms of NFL merchandise sales, Brady (40 years old today) is #1 but Ezekiel Elliott and Dak Prescott are 2 and 3.
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
I would also recommend having at least two monitors if you are doing a lot of work from multiple documents, so that you have enough screen real estate to have all the documents up side by side (especially if you are cut and pasting from several documents into one).
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
Security is a big issue.
I use a Time Machine, which still has drawbacks, but at least I control the real estate
Evening all. Catching up, and with reference to Ms @Cyclefree's request.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
I would also recommend having at least two monitors if you are doing a lot of work from multiple documents, so that you have enough screen real estate to have all the documents up side by side (especially if you are cut and pasting from several documents into one).
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
Security is a big issue.
I use a Time Machine, which still has drawbacks, but at least I control the real estate
Using any service like DropBox, GoogleDrive, iCloud etc, you should setup up an encrypted "folder" in which to put everything. There are services like BoxCryptor that make this a lot easier for those who don't have a PhD in Computer Science and provide end-to-end encryption.
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
Storytelling can indeed be moving, persuasive and inspirational.
But in recognition of that power, my mind seems to revolt against it. If, for example, a story has a nice moral clarity to it, and the moral of the story "conveniently" happens to fit what the the speaker intended to convey, it makes me wonder just how many alternative tales could have been spun with the contrary objective in mind. For that reason alone, I find it hard to justify using a story to reach a conclusion. (I won't deny that stories and anecdotes win out over data for memorability.)
I associate "storytelling" with the same bag of tricks as "playing emotive music when trying to make me feel sad about something" - it leaves me with a sense I am being manipulated in some way, which is uncomfortable for me.
I'd rather be faced with a wall of facts. Preferably hard statistics, if relevant (with graphs showing long-run trends, with averages fleshed out by confidence intervals and so on). And I know these can be selectively presented too, but I generally trust my judgment as to whether someone is trying to pull wool over my eyes with them.
If you are trying to influence people, you have to use stories.
The reason is in the neuroscience. If you display facts, you engage the cortex, which is a critical, oppositional thought process, seeking to find what is wrong with the data. If you tell a story, you engage the limbic system, which seeks to find parallels from the listener's experience to retell the story in their own minds, thereby winning them to your point of view.
Unless you're trying to influence those who are skeptics by temperament, in which case stories are alll very well, but unsupported by data, relatively useless. In a similar manner, SeanT can often be interesting and entertaining, while being entirely unpersuasive.
These more dire consequences for teenage girls could also be rooted in the fact that they’re more likely to experience cyberbullying. Boys tend to bully one another physically, while girls are more likely to do so by undermining a victim’s social status or relationships. Social media give middle- and high-school girls a platform on which to carry out the style of aggression they favor, ostracizing and excluding other girls around the clock.
Social-media companies are of course aware of these problems, and to one degree or another have endeavored to prevent cyberbullying. But their various motivations are, to say the least, complex. A recently leaked Facebook document indicated that the company had been touting to advertisers its ability to determine teens’ emotional state based on their on-site behavior, and even to pinpoint “moments when young people need a confidence boost.” Facebook acknowledged that the document was real, but denied that it offers “tools to target people based on their emotional state.”
Good grief, I must have missed that. There's a reason I'm not on FB, and I'm not even a teenage girl...
Comments
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03339/SN03339.pdf
Instead, it seems to be a somewhat complex picture of long-term decline in some sectors.
Why would they let their position be known at this stage? These are negotiations.
Remain cried wolf and still lost. If you really think they will be believed in a second referendum then you have been eating the wrong mushrooms again.
But there is a difference. As was pointed out above, we now live in with floating exchange rates, which means that the value of a currency is determined by other fundamental factors, whereas then exchange rates were normally fixed to the dollar except when a policy decision was made to devalue the currency, as Callaghan and Wilson did fifty years ago.
Why we would want to stay in the other two is beyond me.
Britain was updated on aims throughout the Second World War. Unless you believe that the current negotiations are more hostile than that, the government can give us a clue or two.
Again you do not know what is going on behind the other scenes, nor do most of us.
But if you are correct, is not the same true of the other side/
There's much more uncertainty and nonsense on the other side, which initially claimed we couldn't even start talking about a long-term relationship until after we'd left, then claimed we couldn't talk about it until we'd largely agreed exit terms and a humongous bill before knowing what we'd be exiting to. Fortunately they seem to have abandoned both of these bonkers positions but it's still completely unclear whether they want a trade deal or not, whereas the UK position is completely clear: we do.
You think 'any deal is better than no deal' I suppose?
Perhaps we should amend the saying to 'no deal is better than or equal to a bad deal'.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/exclusive-britain-should-introduce-uk-only-passport-lanes-response/
Exclusive: Britain should introduce UK-only passport lanes in response to queues in Europe, minister says
The minister told The Daily Telegraph: "One wonders if this isn't just subterfuge from EU members states, if they aren't just trying to give us a warning that this is something that's in store for us..."
Both sides are pretty bonkers (though the British side currently has the edge on moon-howling). The idiocy of the EU side doesn't make me any more optimistic that a deal will be reached and I'm unclear why Brexiters think that's a good sign.
If you're happy with a Mac then stick with one, if you'd prefer Windows then the Dell XPS range are probably the pick of the bunch right now - but ignore their expensive hi-res touchscreen options.
Whatever you buy get it with 16GB RAM and large SSD drive as most modern laptops are a pain in the arse to upgrade later if it's even possible.
Also, if you're going to be working from a home office most of the time, factor in getting a monitor and keyboard - helps massively with the back, hands and eyes.
If you're doing important presentations, make sure you have a second laptop with you (can be an old one) just in case - also have the presentation on a memory stick and if you need some sort of a dongle to connect from the laptop to an HDMI or VGA screen then bring a second one of them too!
The other thing new home office users forget is backups - both MS and Apple make this really easy now, and for extra protection there are also encrypted cloud services like Carbonite which works very well when you mess up or delete a file.
(@Cyclefree I'll PM you some more specific ideas in the next day or two as I'm travelling, I do SMB IT for a day job).
There will be a deal of some kind just to keep the essentials going, if nothing else. But "no deal" isn't a resolution. At some point the UK will need to sort out a relationship with the rest of the continent it is a part of, and which represents half its trade. The EU won't be any easier to deal with later.
And if anybody were to claim that, even hypothetically, there is no such deal (that is, Britain's position is so much better by reaching a deal with the EU than not, that no potential deal on offer could possibly be worse than no-deal) then just imagine an £X billion "divorce bill" and increase the value of X until you hit the point where the costs outweigh the benefits. Clearly a "deal that is worse than no-deal" is a theoretical possibility, though I hope no negotiators view that as a challenge to see if they can conjure one into life.
The vast majority of potential deals are better than the no-deal state, but it doesn't make any sense (either logically - or as a bargaining position) to claim that any deal must be preferable to none.
https://twitter.com/radiotimes/status/893199544363700224
Mr. Sandpit, what is your view on backing up key documents to the Cloud? The Mrs is trying to persuade me to do this, I still have security reservations.
I was arguing the general 'deal' case, rather than the Brexit one. If 'no deal' represented a painful death for everyone and everything in existence, it might just be the worst deal ...
My recommendation in your case is simple: buy another Mac. As you are familiar with Macs, the learning curve will be small and IMHO that outweighs any advantages of another choice. They are pricey but I think you can cover it.
Failing that, below I list three options for a cheap-but-sufficient laptop. If your budget is limited these are better options.
OPTION 1: GET A RECONDITIONED LAPTOP
=========================
If you google "reconditioned laptops" and your postcode, it'll list suppliers near you. This is the cheap option.
OPTION 2: GO TO ARGOS
===============
This Windows 10 laptop http://www.argos.co.uk/product/6548016 comes with a year's subscription to Office 365, the rental version of Office, so you will have things like Excel and Word. Or buy another laptop and get Office Home and Student 2016 (http://www.argos.co.uk/product/4552822 ), the purchase-once version of Office, and instal it.
OPTION 3: GO TO DELL
==============
Go to the Dell store, click on "for work", click on "laptop", click on "Latitude", click on "Latitude 3180", click on "customise", click on "Microsoft Office Home and Business", then buy it. This link may help (http://www.dell.com/uk/business/p/latitude-11-3180-laptop/pd?ref=PD_OC ).
From my personal point of view the first thing I would do when we finally defy Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Don Helder is hold an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Let's start with a clean slate and have an immigration policy that works for everyone.
As I've said before I voted against my own narrow self interest when I voted Leave, instead I voted for the long term future of my daughters and my grandkids.
And I can't be having all this bullshit that we older people have ruined it for the younger generation. I was part of the young generation that voted to join in 1975, we were lied to then and we have been lied to ever since.
I voted Leave for the good of the younger generation, not for myself and not because I am xenophobic.
Rant over, that's me done for the night.
The Grand Jury subpoenas are a notable marker (in fact this move was kicked off a bit back) but news is out to pre-empt Trump trying to rid of the chief investigator.
This is, however is just a marker, worse for Trump is to come. Much worse on many fronts.
As a note, Carter Page, advisor and general embarassment was involved with a Russian Intelligence network busted by the FBI. Other people in the Trump orbit are subject to serious thumbscrews on their dealings that will result in some turning grass.
As for Nigel Farage, I posted a few months back that he should be careful who's wagon he got hitched to. Yesterdays man will, in time be revealed to be anything but the uber Brit.
Mr Meeks, from my time in various souks in the Arab world, the usual haggling sounds like multiple simultaneous murders with ritualistic instruments of torture. If they offer you tea, you know you're about to be screwed.
I shall look into them.
My aim one day is to give talks without any presentations at all (I already reduce them to bare bones with barely any links to what I am saying) - like AJP Taylor - just a gripping and beautifully thought through and spoken tale, leaving the listener with much to think about.
One day.
(The generality I am relying upon is that "no deal" is a state that is a default state known to both parties, which is reverted to if the negotiations fail to reach agreement. If we accept that premise, I think the argument is completely general. In real life perhaps this does not hold - if the harm of "no deal" cannot be known at this stage because one of the parties has the capacity to make the "no deal" state more damaging to the other, for example, and we do not know if they will exercise this capacity.)
However, I'm finding some people just require the visual stuff too. So I tend to do the story up front, then back fill with some slides.
More
Labour GAIN Margate Central (Thanet) from UKIP
Story telling - even in business - is essential and an art which few leaders know how to do at all, let alone well. And we are all, au fond, telling a story about us, our teams, our work, what is, what should be.
And if we aren't, we damn well should be.
It is surprising how poor most people, even quite senior people, are at communicating in an interesting, memorable let alone inspirational way.
http://www.lg.com/us/business/commercial-display/it-products/desktop-monitors/lg-34UC87M-B
On 'Cloud' backup, it depends very much on what you've got, who needs to get access to it and the consequences for either loss of the data or it falling into someone's hands. Most companies now encrypt data on your machine, so their servers never see the plain copy, and I'd always recommend for this sort of service a company for whom it's their main line of business - so Dropbox or Carbonite rather than Microsoft or Google, for example. Another way of doing 'Cloud' storage is to use an email account that everyone who needs the data has access to.
Feel free to PM me if you've got more specific questions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-40822269
I am quite a fan of non linear presentations like Prezi that, once built
T can be given to many audiences at different levels but are never the same, and the narrative can move flexibly.
With this crew, it'll be "hold my beer"...
But in recognition of that power, my mind seems to revolt against it. If, for example, a story has a nice moral clarity to it, and the moral of the story "conveniently" happens to fit what the the speaker intended to convey, it makes me wonder just how many alternative tales could have been spun with the contrary objective in mind. For that reason alone, I find it hard to justify using a story to reach a conclusion. (I won't deny that stories and anecdotes win out over data for memorability.)
I associate "storytelling" with the same bag of tricks as "playing emotive music when trying to make me feel sad about something" - it leaves me with a sense I am being manipulated in some way, which is uncomfortable for me.
I'd rather be faced with a wall of facts. Preferably hard statistics, if relevant (with graphs showing long-run trends, with averages fleshed out by confidence intervals and so on). And I know these can be selectively presented too, but I generally trust my judgment as to whether someone is trying to pull wool over my eyes with them.
We are not buying a carpet in a souk.
We want a long term relationship rather than a one night stand, but the EU are acting more like a hooker rather than a potential wife at this stage.
LAB: 45.5% (+5.8)
CON: 45.2% (+0.1)
LDEM: 7.1% (+7.1)
UKIP: 2.2% (+2.2)
No Grn as prev.
Multi member ward.
I will admit that I had thought the EU would be more eager for a trade deal than they appear. It would be foolish not to adjust one's stance based on newer and clearer information. But once the EU's stance became clearer, I also argued that, with emotions high, a cool off period after exit and before negotiating the longer term deal, might be required in order for the two sides to be able to concentrate on outcomes for optimal mutual long-term interests (i.e. not to conflate the two events of negotiating the best mutual long-term trading and other relationship, and the EU need to make leaving unattractive).
Controlling migration, whilst not something I am in favour of, does not equate with banning foreigners - except in the sick minds of the terminally bigoted like yourself.
Britain Elects @britainelects 2m2 minutes ago
More
Labour GAIN Marine (Worthing) from Conservative.
The reason is in the neuroscience. If you display facts, you engage the cortex, which is a critical, oppositional thought process, seeking to find what is wrong with the data. If you tell a story, you engage the limbic system, which seeks to find parallels from the listener's experience to retell the story in their own minds, thereby winning them to your point of view.
LAB: 47.4% (+27.8)
CON: 38.8% (-6.4)
LDEM: 11.3% (+1.1)
GRN: 2.5% (-6.2)
Remarkable Result
In terms of NFL merchandise sales, Brady (40 years old today) is #1 but Ezekiel Elliott and Dak Prescott are 2 and 3.
As you know I'm not a fan.
I use a Time Machine, which still has drawbacks, but at least I control the real estate
I mean why would anyone who voted trump vote for Nanci Pelosi as House speaker, she is so tone deaf she makes May look in touch with the people.
In a similar manner, SeanT can often be interesting and entertaining, while being entirely unpersuasive.
Along those lines, here's a striking account of how smartphone usage is strongly correlated with unhappiness. The combination of data and anecdote is far more persuasive than either alone might be:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/
These more dire consequences for teenage girls could also be rooted in the fact that they’re more likely to experience cyberbullying. Boys tend to bully one another physically, while girls are more likely to do so by undermining a victim’s social status or relationships. Social media give middle- and high-school girls a platform on which to carry out the style of aggression they favor, ostracizing and excluding other girls around the clock.
Social-media companies are of course aware of these problems, and to one degree or another have endeavored to prevent cyberbullying. But their various motivations are, to say the least, complex. A recently leaked Facebook document indicated that the company had been touting to advertisers its ability to determine teens’ emotional state based on their on-site behavior, and even to pinpoint “moments when young people need a confidence boost.” Facebook acknowledged that the document was real, but denied that it offers “tools to target people based on their emotional state.”
Good grief, I must have missed that. There's a reason I'm not on FB, and I'm not even a teenage girl...