If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
Normally, I wouldn't be interested in a SCOTUS nomination hearing, but it has been an interesting exposition of how US politics has become so toxic over cultural issues such as abortion and guns.
It does seem bizarre that Republicans oppose terminations, but want to keep the right for nutters to equip themselves to murder children in schools.
I've e done a 180, this is not a sure thing slam dunk. It is on a knife edge.
My thoughts as well. I had to really ask when I read it - if his confirmation was a sure thing why on earth would be he writing that op-ed? Only thing I can think of is that he doesn’t want to be seen as divisive and as having tainted the court so is trying to ease concerns about his temperament.
I've been watching This Week and, unusually, I am thinking on similar lines to Michael Portillo.
It seems to me that it's very possible that
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May will feel that Her Deal will be better than No Deal. 3. So May will bring her deal to the country to vote for in a General Election. 4. ???
Also, I sensed a very fractious mood between Neil and Portillo. Normally I like Neil but not tonight.
3 b). I don't think May will ever offer a 2nd Referendum. She has staked her reputation on respecting the result of the referendum and delivering some form of Brexit. If her version of Brexit is rejected by the people at a GE than it will be someone else's problem to sort out - but she won't technically have ignored the result of the referendum by offering a 2nd one.
I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader. Firstly, there would be an immediate leadership challenge and even if she wins, that will look terrible. Secondly, May's deal is going to suck - it will be worse than Chequers. I can just about imagine that May might call a Deal/No Deal referendum with a chance of winning it (I think she would lose) but if she calls a GE she will definitely lose. There will be a Tory protest vote to UKIP. And surely she doesn't want to spend 4 weeks defending her deal in detail. Her best chance is to shut down discussion, not open it up.
If May was really being honest, she would say that she will bring back her deal and if it is not approved she will proceed with no deal. She cannot honestly claim that no deal is an option that is deliverable if she can't close a deal but impossible if she does.
Post Chequers up to 8% are already voting UKIP in the polls, yet the Tories are still at least level with Labour.
Hence May firmly planted Tory domestic policy in the centre ground this week to appeal to swing voters
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
And isn't that how it should be?
The press and the public shouldn't need to take an interest in people picked for their legal expertise, experience and character with no interest paid to their political views.
The last thing Britain needs is to import the spectacle around the supreme court from America.
With the Gina Miller case etc our own SC is becoming more political, it is about time we started taking more of an interest in it
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
There will not be a vote on a Deal as there will be no Deal, the only vote will be on a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which to negotiate a Deal.
May's now it seems proposed policy of staying in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border to get a transition period virtually matches Labour's anyway and as it would apply to the whole UK the DUP can do little to complain about it
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
I think enough remainers will support it, including those on the Labour back benches, to allow the deal to pass. They, and indeed the HoC will be looking at a no deal Brexit and will pull back. May's deal will involve enough can kicking that there will still be matters to play for in the intervening period whilst rejection risks such a break with the EU that we might never be allowed back.
From the Tory point of view remainers will look at the real risk of Boris being the leader within days of the deal being rejected and they will back May, whatever their reservations.
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Sure, have £20 at 6/1 on the first scenario. I am sure lots of people in the UK would happily pay £120 if they didn't have to sit through another Theresa May election campaign.
OK. So to confirm. If it happens that
1. May gets some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May brings her deal to the country and leads her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
I win £120 off you. If 1 and 2 don't happen, I owe you £20. Can you confirm.
Was with one of the senior remainers last night... Plans are well advanced for a massive concert in Hyde park ahead of March 29 . It will be called Brexaid.. Prelim line up..U2. Tears for fears...Annie Lennox... Possibly Rick Ashley singing "Never going to give EU up"
I'm not kidding..
They expect 200000
No doubt all those metropolitan luvvies having a great time talking to themselves in Central London will move lots of leavers in Stoke, Mansfield, Rotherham and Hartlepool to recant their heresy.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
And isn't that how it should be?
The press and the public shouldn't need to take an interest in people picked for their legal expertise, experience and character with no interest paid to their political views.
The last thing Britain needs is to import the spectacle around the supreme court from America.
With the Gina Miller case etc our own SC is becoming more political, it is about time we started taking more of an interest in it
Gina Miller did something political. The court ruled based on the law. We do not want our appointees to become political, that is a perversion of the supreme court's role in America and it would be the same here.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
I think enough remainers will support it, including those on the Labour back benches, to allow the deal to pass. They, and indeed the HoC will be looking at a no deal Brexit and will pull back. May's deal will involve enough can kicking that there will still be matters to play for in the intervening period whilst rejection risks such a break with the EU that we might never be allowed back.
From the Tory point of view remainers will look at the real risk of Boris being the leader within days of the deal being rejected and they will back May, whatever their reservations.
TBH I am unsure on the Labour part of it mainly, not so much I disagree more that I am just not sure what numbers (if anything decent) they would come through in. It is very up in the air for me and I struggle to pick out what is likely and end up thinking of every possibility as unlikely.
Doesn't seem any less realistic than any other possible futures.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
There will not be a vote on a Deal as there will be no Deal, the only vote will be on a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which to negotiate a Deal.
May's now it seems proposed policy of staying in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border to get a transition period virtually matches Labour's anyway and as it would apply to the whole UK the DUP can do little to complain about it
That is one way out of it in the short term, can kicking is a very good bet if we go by previous behaviour as well.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
There will not be a vote on a Deal as there will be no Deal, the only vote will be on a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which to negotiate a Deal.
May's now it seems proposed policy of staying in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border to get a transition period virtually matches Labour's anyway and as it would apply to the whole UK the DUP can do little to complain about it
That is one way out of it in the short term, can kicking is a very good bet if we go by previous behaviour as well.
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
And what would that achieve. A leadership election with hustings and then 2 candidates sent to the membership. Two to three months disruption at the exact time brexit needs cool heads. I do not expect her to resign unless the cabinet call for it
The real big story today, Chinese spying. If true, a totally different level of spying and we should all be worried.
There is a high degree of computer expertise on this board and this most emphatically does not include me but I am having real problems in understanding how an extra chip would affect control or the operation of a motherboard. Surely the instructions for how chips operate is in the software/coding? Unless the chip had some built in code that operated when triggered to do so? Is that even possible?
As I say I would love to tap the expertise available on this.
The original Bloomberg article does a decent job of explaining this for the layman.
Well not this one because I read it. It said that a chip smaller than a grain of rice had been added to the motherboard. It claimed that this chip allowed access to the system once it was in place giving control or access to the remote user. It didn’t say how.
Simplfying massively ....
The small chip only has connect to an external computer and download a larger piece of software into memory. Computer firewalls often do not block outgoing traffic, particularly if that traffic originates from a process identifying itself as a security admin.
The larger piece of software can then be loaded into memory and tagged as a top-level process and then run unimpeded.
Helpfully, in many server systems, any software tagged as belonging to userId 0 (zero) has the highest level of security clearance on the machine, so tagging rogue software is not a difficult process.
Thanks for that.
Just to add to Beverley C's explanation...
The instructions for the main processor are in software. The processor tells the other chips on the motherboard what to do. In broad terms, what the processor tells other chips to do is governed by the software. However, none of this prevents a chip acting autonomously if it is designed to do so. Indeed, some of the chips in your PC may do that. If, for example, you have an SSD drive, it will be doing its own thing (to do with prolonging the life of the drive) as well as responding to commands from the processor.
It would be possible to design a spy chip that loaded software into memory as Beverley C describes. If the chip had enough processing power and was connected to the right things on the motherboard, it wouldn't even need to do that. It could potentially grab data straight out of the PC's memory and send it elsewhere.
Was with one of the senior remainers last night... Plans are well advanced for a massive concert in Hyde park ahead of March 29 . It will be called Brexaid.. Prelim line up..U2. Tears for fears...Annie Lennox... Possibly Rick Ashley singing "Never going to give EU up"
I'm not kidding..
They expect 200000
I dont think that you would get anything like those numbers for an outdoor winter concert.
I think that the Oct 20th rally in London will probably get a decent crowd, but after that it is hard to see big demonstrations.
The change of opinion across the country was covered in detail here:
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
I think Kavanaugh will get through, but the shift in the midterm elections will make the next one much tougher to pass.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
As I've pointed out before, the two things are not remotely comparable.
Imagine a combination of the ECJ and ECHR with nine members, with the power to strike down government legislation, appointed for life by the party currently in power, and no Article 50.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
I think Kavanaugh will get through, but the shift in the midterm elections will make the next one much tougher to pass.
Still not sure that the Dems will take the Senate though. I fear Cruz will hold on.
More fun to discuss it here! It is after all a political betting site.
I described my scenario playing out as, "very possible".
Your response was, "I can't imagine for one second the Tories allowing May to call a General Election over her deal with her as leader" - which I equate to a "very unlikely" assessment on your part.
How about 6/1 I'm right that the below happens:
1. May will get some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. So May will bring her deal to the country and lead her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
Or the above plus,
3. May forms a government after the General Election that delivers her negotiated Brexit.
at 12/1.
Happy with small or larger stakes. £5-£100 range?
P.S. Any other scenarios, you win.
Sure, have £20 at 6/1 on the first scenario. I am sure lots of people in the UK would happily pay £120 if they didn't have to sit through another Theresa May election campaign.
OK. So to confirm. If it happens that
1. May gets some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole. 2. May brings her deal to the country and leads her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
I win £120 off you. If 1 and 2 don't happen, I owe you £20. Can you confirm.
I am not going to bet, and I enjoyed reading the exchange but I just cannot see another election. It would be madness; she'd lose by a country mile, Corbyn or no Corbyn. Everyone is angry atm on all sides (apart from His Serene Jezzness, obvs) and a GE gives them a chance (cf the EURef) to kick the dog without actually, er, kicking the dog.
In actual fact, I would bet!! I will bet there is no GE before 2022 as scheduled. I just don't think anyone has the stomach for it jeez if she called one she might not even get my vote. Take Jezza and his cabal away and she almost certainly wouldn't.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
I think Kavanaugh will get through, but the shift in the midterm elections will make the next one much tougher to pass.
Still not sure that the Dems will take the Senate though. I fear Cruz will hold on.
If the Dems take Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee and only lose North Dakota of the seats they hold they take the Senate even without Texas
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
Yes, if her deal is rejected she goes. Even if it is not a VonC in the government it is beyond doubt a VonC in her.
The problem is what happens next? The Commons rejecting the deal does not create more options. They still have the choice of deal, no deal or ask nicely for some more time, something the EU is not obliged to give. I am far from convinced that the cosy assumption that the EU would give us time is correct. It requires unanimous agreement. They are being asked to renegotiate a deal which they will no doubt regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory compromise too to their disadvantage. Why would they do this?
These are difficult scenarios but they have led me to conclude that the Commons will not reject May's deal. It is just too much of a risk with too much uncertainty.
The stakes are huge on all sides though, as much good reason as there might be for an MP to vote for it there is good reason for an MP to vote against it. Unless May brings back a deal which is close to Labours vision then the Labour party will vote against it. I can't see the SNP or the Lib Dems rescuing the Tories. The DUP have their own red lines.
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
There will not be a vote on a Deal as there will be no Deal, the only vote will be on a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which to negotiate a Deal.
May's now it seems proposed policy of staying in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border to get a transition period virtually matches Labour's anyway and as it would apply to the whole UK the DUP can do little to complain about it
That is one way out of it in the short term, can kicking is a very good bet if we go by previous behaviour as well.
May will kick the can as long as she can to stay in No 10
If the Maybot's deal is rejected by the HoC, her best option is a 2nd non-AV referendum to ask the people to decide, with 3 options - deal, no deal or remain...
She'd be gone in minutes.....
And what would that achieve. A leadership election with hustings and then 2 candidates sent to the membership. Two to three months disruption at the exact time brexit needs cool heads. I do not expect her to resign unless the cabinet call for it
It would ensure Brexit happens. She can't make that Conference speech and then weeks later, offer a route for overturning Brexit. At least the members - and the country - could then have a PM they could trust. May is only hanging in there because Brexit will be delivered. She may yet be bounced out if what she offer is BINO.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
I remember in my uni course (special relativity) there were questions like 'if you ran into a 10m shed with a 5m ladder at 1/3 of the speed of light, how much of the ladder would fit into the shed?' (or something like that)
Of all the things that would help me travel at 1/3 of the speed of light, carrying a damn ladder? How impractical!
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
I think Kavanaugh will get through, but the shift in the midterm elections will make the next one much tougher to pass.
Still not sure that the Dems will take the Senate though. I fear Cruz will hold on.
If the Dems take Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee and only lose North Dakota of the seats they hold they take the Senate even without Texas
I think they will take Arizona. I don't think they will take Tennessee. Florida is also at risk.
On topic, isn’t the Kavanaugh story the most boring story ever?
Indeed, it’s so boring I haven’t even been bothered to read all the detail beneath the headline. All I know is he’s a proposed judge who blubbed because he drunk a lot and was sexually aggressive, and got found out. The Samuel Jackson meme was the most interesting thing about it.
Otherwise I don’t care.
As most Brits should not, we do not even give the lead story to the appointment of our own SC judges
As I've pointed out before, the two things are not remotely comparable.
Imagine a combination of the ECJ and ECHR with nine members, with the power to strike down government legislation, appointed for life by the party currently in power, and no Article 50.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
I remember in my uni course (special relativity) there were questions like 'if you ran into a 10m shed with a 5m ladder at 1/3 of the speed of light, how much of the ladder would fit into the shed?' (or something like that)
Of all the things that would help me travel at 1/3 of the speed of light, carrying a damn ladder? How impractical!
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which your standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Lovely. Reminiscent of "What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light?"
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
There are some who would.
Thomas is famous for only speaking once a Supreme Court heating in the last 15 years
I've e done a 180, this is not a sure thing slam dunk. It is on a knife edge.
My thoughts as well. I had to really ask when I read it - if his confirmation was a sure thing why on earth would be he writing that op-ed? Only thing I can think of is that he doesn’t want to be seen as divisive and as having tainted the court so is trying to ease concerns about his temperament.
It is the most self-serving BS from start to finish. I don't think it has much to do with ensuring his nomination, though, so as much as bolstering his own self-image.
Flake and Collins have given every indication of folding, but you never know, particularly with the well named Flake. At this point, he's more likely than not to be confirmed, but it's not 10-1 on.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
There are some who would.
Thomas is famous for only speaking once a Supreme Court heating in the last 15 years
That in itself is hardly condemnatory (though most unusual in today's court). Some of the recognised great justices were also notably reticent.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
Lol, he failed to recuse himself in a case where his wife had a financial stake in the outcome and had lobbied for one side.
I think so far as Kavanaugh is concerned it is worth remembering the huge furore about Clarence Thomas who also faced allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour towards Anita Hill. He was approved 52-48 in an equally partisan and bitter fight. He is now, after Kennedy's retirement, one of the longest serving Associate Justices.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
I think Kavanaugh will get through, but the shift in the midterm elections will make the next one much tougher to pass.
Still not sure that the Dems will take the Senate though. I fear Cruz will hold on.
If the Dems take Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee and only lose North Dakota of the seats they hold they take the Senate even without Texas
I think they will take Arizona. I don't think they will take Tennessee. Florida is also at risk.
The Dems lead in the latest Tennessee and Florida polls
Lots of talk about May's deal - don't assume that the deal she presents to the Commons will be an actual deal agreed with the EU. For a year and a half the UK have asked the EU for the moon on a stick and been told no. She had our MPs debating the whys and wherefores of variants of a Chequers plan which was fundamentally flawed from the outset, so why assume that the "deal" she has us debate is actually viable?
There's no majority for anything, there's only one way out.
Unfortunately there's no majority for that either...
I think there's a majority for a Brexit which keeps us in the customs union and either in the SM or very close to it. It would pass with a lot of Labour votes and might prove the end of TM.
Given Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back your scenario would be the end of him and the Labour movement as well.
What he actually said was: "“Brexit is about the future of our country and our vital interests. It is not about leadership squabbles or parliamentary posturing. If you deliver a deal that includes a customs union and no hard border in Ireland, if you protect jobs, people’s rights at work and environmental and consumer standards – then we will support that sensible deal. A deal that would be backed by most of the business world and trade unions too.”
You missed the bit where he said 'and helps pigs to fly and me to understand basic accountancy.'
The only small problem with this idea is that bears no resemblance to any deal we might possibly get. Therefore I stand by my statement he will whip Labour to oppose it.
Your statement was "Corbyn has said he will whip Labour to oppose whatever deal comes back".
He has in fact said the opposite, as my link shows. You are completely wrong and are now trying to change what you originally said.
On your new point, I actually think you're wrong again, but it can't be known until the circumstance arises.
No. I am saying that what he said was impossible, therefore he was in effect saying he will whip Labour to oppose any deal that comes back. He is good at doublespeak like that. Look at student loans or wreath laying ceremonies.
Didn't we clear up your confusion on the whole student thing the other day.
Labour still has the same policy, we are not the government so haven't brought in our policies. Even if we know decided to drop the policy that would be fine as we are the opposition. Our manifesto was not voted in.
Although that doesn't really matter as I pointed out we still have the same policy now.
What is the policy? Will Labour cancel existing debt or not? As usual, it was all smoke and mirrors.
Stage 1 - Try to get an agreed Deal through Parliament. I see the chance of this as slim, but not completely nonexistent. I can't, personally, see any specific Deal acceptable to a majority of the HoC. However, things I can't foresee have happened before, so I won't discount this; it just seems unlikely.
Stage 2 - Government and Parliament have a choice: No Deal Brexit or punt the decision to the public again. If the public were to vote their preference, it's a way to cut the Gordian knot. There are two ways to this: another referendum, or another general election.
2a - Another referendum. Involving a huge climb-down by the Government, but such things have happened. If this were to happen, it seems likely that the choice would be "Deal or Remain" (If Parliament were willing to have No Deal, they'd just run with No Deal and not bother with this step). It's not implausible that it be "Deal or No Deal". If it's Deal-or-Remain, I expect "Deal" to win.
2b - Another General Election. Seems preferred by some, but either the Conservatives would run with Theresa May leading in another snap election campaign [Literally everyone winces] just after failing to get her Party to push her own Deal through [winces more] or have an incredibly quick leadership contest - and in a campaign where loads of things other than Brexit will get discussed and the winner will assume their position on all these things is endorsed. I see this as unlikely, and God only knows what the outcome would be. And if it doesn't result in Theresa May both remaining there and winning a strong majority, we don't get her Deal, anyway, and the clock's run out. A50 extensions are possible, but not if it's "back to square one, sorry, we seem to have wasted all that time," I think.
2c - The Government decides they don't like any of those options and takes No Deal anyway. In this situation, I expect the PM to fall and the Conservatives to carry the can for any and all issues and problems relating to No Deal Brexit (up to and including random negative events that have nothing to do with Brexit but get blamed on them anyway).
So - a Deal getting through would be - what? 5-20% possible? If not, then it's either a referendum, General Election, or No Deal. A referendum (10-25% possible) would probably result in a Deal (call it a 75% chance, to 25% Remain if those are the options, and 50-50 if it's Deal or No Deal, and call those 75-25 in respective probabilities). A GE (10-25% chance) would result in the Deal in a freak result (maybe 5%), A50 reset to start (maybe 10%), No Deal (85%). No Deal gives, well, No Deal at 100%.
All of which doesn't calculate very well but gives indications. Looks like: No Deal ~70-90% Deal ~ 5-25% Remain ~ 2-4% A50 extension/go back to start ~1-2%
F1: surprised to see Bottas' odds so relatively long for pole. Backed him each way, third the odds top 2, at 5.5 (5.75 with boost). I don't expect him to get pole, again, but he's got a strong chance of being 2nd, I think: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Also, noticed just now (think it wasn't up before), Hamilton is 2.5 to top FP3. That may be worth a look, as he's been top by a mile in the previous two sessions.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
I remember in my uni course (special relativity) there were questions like 'if you ran into a 10m shed with a 5m ladder at 1/3 of the speed of light, how much of the ladder would fit into the shed?' (or something like that)
Of all the things that would help me travel at 1/3 of the speed of light, carrying a damn ladder? How impractical!
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
I remember in my uni course (special relativity) there were questions like 'if you ran into a 10m shed with a 5m ladder at 1/3 of the speed of light, how much of the ladder would fit into the shed?' (or something like that)
Of all the things that would help me travel at 1/3 of the speed of light, carrying a damn ladder? How impractical!
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
See people have finally decided Brexit is a bit bloody complex...and moved on to quantum physics...
Brexit fails to deal with reality. Quantum Physics is reality.
It makes a refreshing change...
I remember in my uni course (special relativity) there were questions like 'if you ran into a 10m shed with a 5m ladder at 1/3 of the speed of light, how much of the ladder would fit into the shed?' (or something like that)
Of all the things that would help me travel at 1/3 of the speed of light, carrying a damn ladder? How impractical!
Easy: none of the ladder would fit in the shed. Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba. As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
Can I just say that this is the sort of answer I read PB for.
Comments
Could there be enough rebels from the parties to push it through?
It does seem bizarre that Republicans oppose terminations, but want to keep the right for nutters to equip themselves to murder children in schools.
Hence May firmly planted Tory domestic policy in the centre ground this week to appeal to swing voters
May's now it seems proposed policy of staying in the Customs Union until a technical solution is found to the Irish border to get a transition period virtually matches Labour's anyway and as it would apply to the whole UK the DUP can do little to complain about it
From the Tory point of view remainers will look at the real risk of Boris being the leader within days of the deal being rejected and they will back May, whatever their reservations.
1. May gets some sort of a deal agreed with the EU - but that that she won't be able to sell it to the PCP or to parliament as a whole.
2. May brings her deal to the country and leads her party in a General Election, called for this purpose.
I win £120 off you. If 1 and 2 don't happen, I owe you £20. Can you confirm.
Doesn't seem any less realistic than any other possible futures.
His views on the bench have been very conservative but I don't think anyone would seriously contend that he has not fulfilled his function diligently and correctly.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1048113115928440832?s=19
The instructions for the main processor are in software. The processor tells the other chips on the motherboard what to do. In broad terms, what the processor tells other chips to do is governed by the software. However, none of this prevents a chip acting autonomously if it is designed to do so. Indeed, some of the chips in your PC may do that. If, for example, you have an SSD drive, it will be doing its own thing (to do with prolonging the life of the drive) as well as responding to commands from the processor.
It would be possible to design a spy chip that loaded software into memory as Beverley C describes. If the chip had enough processing power and was connected to the right things on the motherboard, it wouldn't even need to do that. It could potentially grab data straight out of the PC's memory and send it elsewhere.
I think that the Oct 20th rally in London will probably get a decent crowd, but after that it is hard to see big demonstrations.
The change of opinion across the country was covered in detail here:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/11/more-than-100-pro-leave-constituencies-switch-to-remain
Imagine a combination of the ECJ and ECHR with nine members, with the power to strike down government legislation, appointed for life by the party currently in power, and no Article 50.
In actual fact, I would bet!! I will bet there is no GE before 2022 as scheduled. I just don't think anyone has the stomach for it jeez if she called one she might not even get my vote. Take Jezza and his cabal away and she almost certainly wouldn't.
Because if you stopped in the shed, there wouldn't be a shed to fit into.
A 5m ladder weighing maybe 7-10kg, plus a person, weighing a nominal 70 kg, travelling at a velocity of 1/3rd c (1 times ten to the 8 metres per second) would have a kinetic energy of gamma (1.06066)-times-vee-squared (1 times ten to the sixteenth)-times-mass (80kg) = 8.49 times ten to the 17 joules.
This is about equivalent in energy to 200 megatonnes of TNT, or about four times the destructive potential of the TsarBomba.
As soon as you brake to a halt in the shed, you dissipate all that kinetic energy and your shed, ladder, you, your garden, house, village, and a decent chunk of the country in which you're standing is destroyed in an explosion far larger than any made by humans in history.
That is, assuming you get into your shed, considering the speed at which you're moving through the air - fast enough that every molecule of air impacting you has the energy equivalent of a hand grenade going off.
And, of course, you could have got all of your ladder into your shed easily at slow speeds, as 5m is smaller than 10m.
If, however, the question had been miswritten the other way around and it was a 10m ladder into a 5m shed, it still would never have fit (for the same reason, only the doubled mass leads to doubled kinetic energy and a 400 megatonne explosion, and, to add insult to injury, at no point would the ladder have fit into your shed, as the Lorentz contraction at one-third of c is merely 0.942809, meaning that even if you could simply go through the shed without slowing down (and bringing the ladder to the shed's frame of reference), it would have been no smaller than 9.428 metres per second.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/
I don't think it has much to do with ensuring his nomination, though, so as much as bolstering his own self-image.
Flake and Collins have given every indication of folding, but you never know, particularly with the well named Flake. At this point, he's more likely than not to be confirmed, but it's not 10-1 on.
Stage 1 - Try to get an agreed Deal through Parliament.
I see the chance of this as slim, but not completely nonexistent. I can't, personally, see any specific Deal acceptable to a majority of the HoC. However, things I can't foresee have happened before, so I won't discount this; it just seems unlikely.
Stage 2 - Government and Parliament have a choice: No Deal Brexit or punt the decision to the public again.
If the public were to vote their preference, it's a way to cut the Gordian knot. There are two ways to this: another referendum, or another general election.
2a - Another referendum. Involving a huge climb-down by the Government, but such things have happened. If this were to happen, it seems likely that the choice would be "Deal or Remain" (If Parliament were willing to have No Deal, they'd just run with No Deal and not bother with this step). It's not implausible that it be "Deal or No Deal". If it's Deal-or-Remain, I expect "Deal" to win.
2b - Another General Election. Seems preferred by some, but either the Conservatives would run with Theresa May leading in another snap election campaign [Literally everyone winces] just after failing to get her Party to push her own Deal through [winces more] or have an incredibly quick leadership contest - and in a campaign where loads of things other than Brexit will get discussed and the winner will assume their position on all these things is endorsed. I see this as unlikely, and God only knows what the outcome would be. And if it doesn't result in Theresa May both remaining there and winning a strong majority, we don't get her Deal, anyway, and the clock's run out. A50 extensions are possible, but not if it's "back to square one, sorry, we seem to have wasted all that time," I think.
2c - The Government decides they don't like any of those options and takes No Deal anyway. In this situation, I expect the PM to fall and the Conservatives to carry the can for any and all issues and problems relating to No Deal Brexit (up to and including random negative events that have nothing to do with Brexit but get blamed on them anyway).
So - a Deal getting through would be - what? 5-20% possible? If not, then it's either a referendum, General Election, or No Deal. A referendum (10-25% possible) would probably result in a Deal (call it a 75% chance, to 25% Remain if those are the options, and 50-50 if it's Deal or No Deal, and call those 75-25 in respective probabilities). A GE (10-25% chance) would result in the Deal in a freak result (maybe 5%), A50 reset to start (maybe 10%), No Deal (85%). No Deal gives, well, No Deal at 100%.
All of which doesn't calculate very well but gives indications. Looks like:
No Deal ~70-90%
Deal ~ 5-25%
Remain ~ 2-4%
A50 extension/go back to start ~1-2%
The Royal College of Nursing revealed there were 16,580 fewer applicants in September this year compared 2016 when there were bursaries.
91% of nurses earn less than £30k the proposed skilled worker level
Betting PostF1: surprised to see Bottas' odds so relatively long for pole. Backed him each way, third the odds top 2, at 5.5 (5.75 with boost). I don't expect him to get pole, again, but he's got a strong chance of being 2nd, I think:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/10/japan-pre-qualifying-2018.html
Also, noticed just now (think it wasn't up before), Hamilton is 2.5 to top FP3. That may be worth a look, as he's been top by a mile in the previous two sessions.
Nurses wages are still about the average for full-time female workers and more for midwives
Ignores the fact that nurses are quitting in record numbers
Ignores fact that there are 41000 vacancies
Ignores fact that PMs announcement this week would mean 91% of nurses would fall into the "unskilled"