You have to wonder what is the point of MI5 if they've been scooped on this and the GRU killers, and did not have the sense to monitor Eurostar for likely jihadis. Philip Hammond could save a shedload of cash by replacing it with one man to read the foreign papers and a woman to scan twitter.
That's assuming they were 'scooped'. How do you know they didn't already know this ?
One of the things which make me proudest to be British is that GCHQ discovered public key encryption at least two years before anyone else did, and kept it to themselves. So, yes, our security services know more than they let on.
We are all proud the British Government did so much to throw away our lead in computing -- persecuting Turing, smashing up the Colossus, suppressing public key encryption (which is the foundation of web commerce).
You consistently seem to know f'all about the stuff you say. Colossus was *not* smashed up; a couple were retained and used for well over a decade after the war. What is more, the tech directly fed into Manchester's Baby and Mark 1 (via Max Newman et al), less directly into Cambridge's EDSAC, and later LEO, the world's first commercial business electronic computer.
And the encryption tech only really came into its own in the 1990s, and its suppression in the 1970s made sense.
Why did it's suppression make sense?
It was a mere curiosity. At the time, a secure means of electronic key distribution was of little value to anyone, bar the intelligence services, and you sure as hell don't gift useful technology to the opposition.
You know the old dictum about military studies - 'Amateurs study tactics, professionals logistics'? There's a parallel one in the crypt world - 'Amateurs worry about algorithms, professionals key distribution'.
Mr. JS, the thought had crossed my mind. The hate of tobacco and increasing tolerance of cannabis seems odd, though not quite as baffling as the increasing puritanism towards sugar in food whilst it's fashionable to attack as fat-shaming anyone who points out being excessively overweight is a bad thing.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
The riff-raff smokes tobacco where as their "better's" smoke cannabis so therefore - Tobacco = Bad - Cannabis = Good.
Leaving aside the personal insults if we may, yes, I do know, along with approximately 97 per cent of the population that the reason for suppression of pki and the colossus was espionage. I do not see how that invalidates my point. I'd be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel.
And again we have that contrast. The more open American system led to development and eventually domination. Unfortunately, the party of capitalism is, before that, the party of the Establishment.
"d be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel"
That's not my claim. Colossus was a dead-end architecture - and hardly a 'true' computer. The people who worked on it, and had gained massive experience on what worked and didn't work with the tech, are the link. As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Newman
As for public key encryption: it invalidates your point as there was no public need for it to publicised, and lots potentially to be lost. The web wasn't to exist for a couple of decades after Ellis discovered it, yet alone 'web commerce'.
And your last paragraph is ridiculous. God help us as a country if that's the lesson we learn from the history ...
And yet the history of public key encryption shows the world did not end when the Americans published, and it subsequently led to much of our modern commercial world, and the Americans are still in the spying game too.
That was years later. In those years the tech changed radically.
You are wrong, just as you were with your claims about Colossus.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
Presumably the same (or tighter) regulation apply to cannabis as to tobacco ?
Maybe, but the perceived stigma of one is higher than the other, when the former is legalised. Which I do support, but it is odd.
But I assume Dr Foxy will never be visiting Canada again for this sin of leglisation.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
Less strange than a culture that allows tobacco smoking and throws people in prison for cannabis, surely?
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
It didn't. It's just that the military in the UK couldn't see any use for public key encryption themselves - they already had effective ways of distributing encryption keys via the existing military hierarchy, so public key encryption didn't really offer them anything they didn't already have in terms of capability. Giving it to the the public sector would have enabled earlier adoption of strong encryption there & we all know how the intelligence services feel about that.
Keeping it it secret was a reflection of of the reflex towards secrecy over openness within the intelligence services. It's not clear that this has actually benefited the UK in the long term.
Leaving aside the personal insults if we may, yes, I do know, along with approximately 97 per cent of the population that the reason for suppression of pki and the colossus was espionage. I do not see how that invalidates my point. I'd be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel.
And again we have that contrast. The more open American system led to development and eventually domination. Unfortunately, the party of capitalism is, before that, the party of the Establishment.
"d be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel"
That's not my claim. Colossus was a dead-end architecture - and hardly a 'true' computer. The people who worked on it, and had gained massive experience on what worked and didn't work with the tech, are the link. As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Newman
As for public key encryption: it invalidates your point as there was no public need for it to publicised, and lots potentially to be lost. The web wasn't to exist for a couple of decades after Ellis discovered it, yet alone 'web commerce'.
And your last paragraph is ridiculous. God help us as a country if that's the lesson we learn from the history ...
And yet the history of public key encryption shows the world did not end when the Americans published, and it subsequently led to much of our modern commercial world, and the Americans are still in the spying game too.
That was years later. In those years the tech changed radically.
You are wrong, just as you were with your claims about Colossus.
Cocks at GCHQ 1973, and RSA published in 1978. Hardly an epoch.
It didn't. It's just that the military in the UK couldn't see any use for public key encryption themselves - they already had effective ways of distributing encryption keys via the existing military hierarchy, so public key encryption didn't really offer them anything they didn't already have in terms of capability. Giving it to the the public sector would have enabled earlier adoption of strong encryption there & we all know how the intelligence services feel about that.
Keeping it it secret was a reflection of of the reflex towards secrecy over openness within the intelligence services. It's not clear that this has actually benefited the UK in the long term.
On the other hand, look at what happened with Petr Ufimtsev's work. From their point of view, the risks outweighed the non-existent (at the time) benefits.
Leaving aside the personal insults if we may, yes, I do know, along with approximately 97 per cent of the population that the reason for suppression of pki and the colossus was espionage. I do not see how that invalidates my point. I'd be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel.
And again we have that contrast. The more open American system led to development and eventually domination. Unfortunately, the party of capitalism is, before that, the party of the Establishment.
"d be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel"
That's not my claim. Colossus was a dead-end architecture - and hardly a 'true' computer. The people who worked on it, and had gained massive experience on what worked and didn't work with the tech, are the link. As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Newman
As for public key encryption: it invalidates your point as there was no public need for it to publicised, and lots potentially to be lost. The web wasn't to exist for a couple of decades after Ellis discovered it, yet alone 'web commerce'.
And your last paragraph is ridiculous. God help us as a country if that's the lesson we learn from the history ...
And yet the history of public key encryption shows the world did not end when the Americans published, and it subsequently led to much of our modern commercial world, and the Americans are still in the spying game too.
That was years later. In those years the tech changed radically.
You are wrong, just as you were with your claims about Colossus.
Cocks at GCHQ 1973, and RSA published in 1978. Hardly an epoch.
1970 for Ellis's work.
So, tell me about how Colossus was 'smashed up', and how it led to us throwing away our lead in computing - when the exact opposite was the case?
How about Joseph Conrad? A great writer, unquestionably of the first rank, and a nod towards the many contributions that immigrants have made to this country.
If a scientist is called for, James Clerk Maxwell would be a great choice.
Conrad's politics are interesting (from Wiki):
Conrad's distrust of democracy sprang from his doubts whether the propagation of democracy as an aim in itself could solve any problems. He thought that, in view of the weakness of human nature and of the "criminal" character of society, democracy offered boundless opportunities for demagogues and charlatans.
But...
He accused social democrats of his time of acting to weaken "the national sentiment, the preservation of which [was his] concern" – of attempting to dissolve national identities in an impersonal melting-pot. "I look at the future from the depth of a very black past and I find that nothing is left for me except fidelity to a cause lost, to an idea without future." It was Conrad's hopeless fidelity to the memory of Poland that prevented him from believing in the idea of "international fraternity", which he considered, under the circumstances, just a verbal exercise. He resented some socialists' talk of freedom and world brotherhood while keeping silent about his own partitioned and oppressed Poland.
Poland was in a fairly resurgent state (as it were) by the time of his death. Good job he didn't survive another couple of decades to see what a truly oppressed and betrayed Poland looked like.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
Indeed. I think people think that tobacco smoke is uniquely harmful, whereas it is more likely, given the purpose for which lungs evolved, that inhaling any form of smoke is a really bad idea and it's just that tobacco smoke is what we have most data about. And anyway probably more cannabis is consumed in tobacco and resin joints than as pure grass. If I were Canada I'd ban the sale of the stuff in smokable form and promote the use of e-spliffs.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
The riff-raff smokes tobacco where as their "better's" smoke cannabis so therefore - Tobacco = Bad - Cannabis = Good.
I don't think Canada's approach is as incoherent as @AndyJS makes out, unless cannabis smoking is going to be legalised in public places ? I'd assume the goal is for the same laws to apply to tobacco as to cannabis - no smoking in restaurants, bars etc (But allowed at home) If that's wrong, I stand to be corrected (I haven't looked this up in detail)
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
Tobacco smoking isn't criminalised.
Selling tobacco doesn't send you to prison.
The criminal justice system isn't creaking at the seams because of tobacco cases.
I see no reason to treat tobacco and cannabis any differently. They should both be discouraged but legal.
Leaving aside the personal insults if we may, yes, I do know, along with approximately 97 per cent of the population that the reason for suppression of pki and the colossus was espionage. I do not see how that invalidates my point. I'd be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel.
And again we have that contrast. The more open American system led to development and eventually domination. Unfortunately, the party of capitalism is, before that, the party of the Establishment.
"d be sceptical of your claim of direct lineage for machines that used the von Neumann architecture -- Colossus was parallel"
That's not my claim. Colossus was a dead-end architecture - and hardly a 'true' computer. The people who worked on it, and had gained massive experience on what worked and didn't work with the tech, are the link. As an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Newman
As for public key encryption: it invalidates your point as there was no public need for it to publicised, and lots potentially to be lost. The web wasn't to exist for a couple of decades after Ellis discovered it, yet alone 'web commerce'.
And your last paragraph is ridiculous. God help us as a country if that's the lesson we learn from the history ...
And yet the history of public key encryption shows the world did not end when the Americans published, and it subsequently led to much of our modern commercial world, and the Americans are still in the spying game too.
That was years later. In those years the tech changed radically.
You are wrong, just as you were with your claims about Colossus.
Cocks at GCHQ 1973, and RSA published in 1978. Hardly an epoch.
1970 for Ellis's work.
So, tell me about how Colossus was 'smashed up', and how it led to us throwing away our lead in computing - when the exact opposite was the case?
Most of the Colossus machines were quite literally smashed up on Churchill's direct orders. I do not think that claim is controversial. A couple were said to have been retained by GCHQ for espionage purposes.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
The riff-raff smokes tobacco where as their "better's" smoke cannabis so therefore - Tobacco = Bad - Cannabis = Good.
Anyone who smokes anything needs their head examined IMO. No form of smoking is healthy. Still, their life is not my life.... so good luck to them
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
The riff-raff smokes tobacco where as their "better's" smoke cannabis so therefore - Tobacco = Bad - Cannabis = Good.
I don't think Canada's approach is as incoherent as @AndyJS makes out, unless cannabis smoking is going to be legalised in public places ? I'd assume the goal is for the same laws to apply to tobacco as to cannabis - no smoking in restaurants, bars etc (But allowed at home) If that's wrong, I stand to be corrected (I haven't looked this up in detail)
All possible options are inconsistent.
Andy's suggested inconsistency is in legislating to restrict tobacco while legislating to widen wacco-tobacco.
Does anyone else think there's something slightly strange about a culture or country which simultaneously attempts to wipe out tobacco smoking while enthusiastically legalising cannabis smoking?
Tobacco smoking isn't criminalised.
Selling tobacco doesn't send you to prison.
The criminal justice system isn't creaking at the seams because of tobacco cases.
I see no reason to treat tobacco and cannabis any differently. They should both be discouraged but legal.
Mr. Meeks, those three named politicians all campaigned on the other side. A failure to accept the democratic result rather sums up the reason they don't accept it.
I think it's more worthwhile considering whether the triumvirate (and Major) will persuade EU bigwigs, and what allies they have amongst MPs, peers, and senior civil servants in the UK.
Theresa Villiers having a torrid time on Adam Boulton.
She just 'wafffles' and has no real amswers. This is another example of an interview with a Brexiteer who trys to wing it.
Why do we have such light weight politicians
Mostly lightweights put themselves forward and are superficially persuasive enough to be selected by party associations, then we the public endorse those lightweights at election time?
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
Why should I care what "prominent former politicians" think? Their prominence means absolutely nothing in regards to whether Brexit is a good or bad thing.
Every single Saudi involved in this gruesome killing should be persona non grata in this country and if they or their families have any accounts here those should be frozen. These people are barbarians
There is an interesting Venn diagram to be drawn between those saying no action should be taken on the Cox report and those against whom complaints of bullying or worse have been made.
We could then add a third circle listing all those who talk sanctimoniously about womens’ rights, the #MeToo movement and their outrage at the behaviour of people like Trump and Kavanaugh.
We might well have the first Venn diagram consisting of 3 circles overlaid on top of each other.
William, even your raging EUphillia must accept that if that gang"stop Brexit", there'd be hell to pay domestically?
I would presume their belief it can be stopped includes believing that the public will support that choice, albeit with a sizable number of very very angry people who disagree.
Given the increasing importance of genetic-based medicine, having another woman to avoid a future controversy when the £10 is next redesigned and the good sense in having a scientist to sit alongside the current politician, writer and painter (and that's just Churchill), then I agree with the previous poster who tipped Rosalind Franklin. As an added bonus, it would piss off the anti-semites.
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
I voted remain, but will shoot
i) The EU is absolubtely in the DNA of Clegg, Blair and Heseltine. They see it as a force for good, a well of prosperity and a backstop against state aid (Guess why Corbyn is less than full throated in his support)
ii) Very long odds against that any of them could ever be bought on board with any sort of Brexit. Perhaps Clegg with a Brexit that remains in the SM and CU, Blair is far too sure of himself on everything to change his mind; probably not with Heseltine.
Mr. Meeks, those three named politicians all campaigned on the other side. A failure to accept the democratic result rather sums up the reason they don't accept it.
I think it's more worthwhile considering whether the triumvirate (and Major) will persuade EU bigwigs, and what allies they have amongst MPs, peers, and senior civil servants in the UK.
I'm more worried why Blair, Clegg and Heseltine should get a hearing at the EU. Who elected them to speak on our behalf?
Mr. Meeks, those three named politicians all campaigned on the other side. A failure to accept the democratic result rather sums up the reason they don't accept it.
I think it's more worthwhile considering whether the triumvirate (and Major) will persuade EU bigwigs, and what allies they have amongst MPs, peers, and senior civil servants in the UK.
More to the point, while there is plenty of reason to suggest the government did not even attempt to bring remainers on board, pointing to unreconciled people are proof in itself that they are right to be unreconciled can easily be turned around. What would be taken to make sure leavers are not unreconciled if remain happens, would Nigel Farage being very unhappy be proof the (new) winning side failed in some way?
But we may as well stop this, since it's just going to end in circular divisiveness about xenophobia and insincere protestations of a lack of emotional hurt.
Short of Lord Adonis it is difficult to imagine a triumverate less likely to change anyone's views on the matter
Also, I like Clegg,but when did he become a 'grandee''?
When he ceased to be Deputy Prime Minister and Party Leader.
Does that automatically confer grandee status? Is George Osborne a grandee?
Yes and yes.
I don't know the exact definition of "grandee" but the way it's used in the press seems to mean somebody who has influence in the party despite not being part of the leadership.
Osborne has grandee credentials twice over, as a former chancellor and as an influential newspaper editor.
Every single Saudi involved in this gruesome killing should be persona non grata in this country and if they or their families have any accounts here those should be frozen. These people are barbarians
There is an interesting Venn diagram to be drawn between those saying no action should be taken on the Cox report and those against whom complaints of bullying or worse have been made.
We could then add a third circle listing all those who talk sanctimoniously about womens’ rights, the #MeToo movement and their outrage at the behaviour of people like Trump and Kavanaugh.
We might well have the first Venn diagram consisting of 3 circles overlaid on top of each other.
That would be a Euler diagram. A Venn diagram always has areas for all possible combinations even when some of the areas are empty.
Short of Lord Adonis it is difficult to imagine a triumverate less likely to change anyone's views on the matter
Also, I like Clegg,but when did he become a 'grandee''?
When he ceased to be Deputy Prime Minister and Party Leader.
Does that automatically confer grandee status? Is George Osborne a grandee?
Yes and yes.
I don't know the exact definition of "grandee" but the way it's used in the press seems to mean somebody who has influence in the party despite not being part of the leadership.
It's what they use when they are not in the Commons and cannot call them a 'senior' backbencher.
William, even your raging EUphillia must accept that if that gang"stop Brexit", there'd be hell to pay domestically?
I would presume their belief it can be stopped includes believing that the public will support that choice, albeit with a sizable number of very very angry people who disagree.
Gammons are going to be furious, it is their default state. If they're not being furious about Brexit, they'll be furious about the existence of muslims or queers or trans people or people who are a bit different.
The gammon will never run out of things to express puce-face self-righteous fury about.
There is zero point trying to make gammons not be furious. It is simply their nature.
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
Why should I care what "prominent former politicians" think? Their prominence means absolutely nothing in regards to whether Brexit is a good or bad thing.
Good. So we can stop lionising Maggie and her handbag now
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
Leavers do ask themselves that, and the answer is "Because those politicians accepting the result would be a betrayal of everything they stood for when they were relevant."
Politicians never accept they are wrong, they carry on regardless. If people like Blair, Heseltine & Clegg would have listened to voters, the mass immigration that led to Brexit would never have happened. How can you bring on board people who are responsible for the mass revolt?
Short of Lord Adonis it is difficult to imagine a triumverate less likely to change anyone's views on the matter
Also, I like Clegg,but when did he become a 'grandee''?
When he ceased to be Deputy Prime Minister and Party Leader.
Does that automatically confer grandee status? Is George Osborne a grandee?
Yes and yes.
I don't know the exact definition of "grandee" but the way it's used in the press seems to mean somebody who has influence in the party despite not being part of the leadership.
It's what they use when they are not in the Commons and cannot call them a 'senior' backbencher.
I'm partial to when journalists say "top Tory" myself.
Makes it sound like you're a kid playing a peculiarly niche version of top trumps.
Most of the Colossus machines were quite literally smashed up on Churchill's direct orders. I do not think that claim is controversial. A couple were said to have been retained by GCHQ for espionage purposes.
Ah, you're changing your position - you're now saying 'most of'. And a couple *were* retained for over a decade.
But remember: *) Colossus's tech was old and a dead-end. Many of the people involved went on to work on its immediate successors in the private sector (e.g. Newman et al). Some Colossus parts even went with him to Manchester. Hence the government contributed to our early lead in privaste-sector computing. *) The tech was changing so rapidly that Colossus rapidly became outdated. *) There was less need for decryption once Germany and Japan had been defeated. WHy keep 12 machines?
You are utterly wrong.
An interesting question is what replaced Colossus at GCHQ. I've never read what computers they used after - and if the two Colossus's left were kept for training, what they training *for*?
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
Why should I care what "prominent former politicians" think? Their prominence means absolutely nothing in regards to whether Brexit is a good or bad thing.
Good. So we can stop lionising Maggie and her handbag now
I would be very happy to never again have a side try to convince me of the rightness or wrongness of a course of action or general support or not for a party by reference to Margaret Thatcher. I know it was not that long ago and she was a very significant figure for the country, but really, I did not experience that time and the level or worship and outrage I am supposed to feel when she is brought up just flies right over my head.
William, even your raging EUphillia must accept that if that gang"stop Brexit", there'd be hell to pay domestically?
I would presume their belief it can be stopped includes believing that the public will support that choice, albeit with a sizable number of very very angry people who disagree.
Gammons are going to be furious, it is their default state. If they're not being furious about Brexit, they'll be furious about the existence of muslims or queers or trans people or people who are a bit different.
The gammon will never run out of things to express puce-face self-righteous fury about.
There is zero point trying to make gammons not be furious. It is simply their nature.
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo. We must leave and then see where we are. Do I despair at the decision of the British public at having made such a choice? Of course. But it must be seen through. I would equally despair if the British public voted in a Labour government and in particular this Labour Party as government.
That said, we should be aiming for the softest of soft Brexits, BINO, and any time tossers like Bridgen or that dickhead on DP yesterday start declaiming their usual ignorant bollocks about Ireland or how Norway is in the EU, or some other moronic pronouncement, then they should be twatted round the head with a large wet fish. Several times.
Mr. Tweed, to be fair, nobody's either supported or opposed the comments Thatcher has made this week.
Mr. Russell, ironic too, that Blair and Clegg both included a referendum on Lisbon in their manifestos, and neither backed it when the time came. Doubly ironic Clegg had a three line whip, demanding a 'real' referendum on an In/Out basis.
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
Blair - Who lied. lied and lied again to unleash hell in Iraq (as well as all his many other crimes and misdemeanors)
Clegg - Who?
Hezza - Knifed the most successful Tory Prime Minister of the 20th Century causing a rupture within the party that hasn't healed to this day and was a key part of the election campaign which saw the Conservatives suffer their worst defeat since 1832!
Leavers never ask themselves: why are so many prominent former politicians so completely unreconciled to the referendum decision?
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
I believe you have it backwards. It's kind of obvious why so many prominent former politicians are so completely unreconciled to having what they worked to create rejected and reversed.
Maybe the prominent former politicians should ask themselves why so much of the public are so completely unreconciled to their creation?
And they (the politicians) never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them (the public) on board?
How about Joseph Conrad? A great writer, unquestionably of the first rank, and a nod towards the many contributions that immigrants have made to this country.
If a scientist is called for, James Clerk Maxwell would be a great choice.
I’ve always found him unreadable and thought him one of those authors who was much admired but never actually read.
Handel would be my choice. A great musician and also a nod to the contribution of immigrants.
Blair's part in Brexit verges on cultural tragedy, not using the very tools the EU itself gave us to give the simplest veneer and varnish of control to our immigration policy in the early 2000s was probably the biggest driver of the leave vote !
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo.
You know what annoys me about a PV? It's the implicit assumption that the political class may simply declare themselves unable to do their job, and demand we rescue them from their ignominy.
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
I really have unleashed the Two Minutes Hate with that last question.
As the Leave project founders on the rock of reality, you would have thought that it might be time for Leavers to reflect on how they might have sought to build a consensus rather than ram through majoritarian extremism. But it seems that time has yet to arrive.
Mr. kle4, I'd extend to being a general principle. Supporting something just because Person X does, or opposing it for the same reason, is just ridiculous. It's like cavemen blindly following the shaman.
Mrs C, lots of people like getting het up. Including some Remain types who enjoy insulting half their countrymen. It's not unique to either side in the referendum, or those of any particular political persuasion. Pointing out some people are cross doesn't tell us whether they have a legitimate grievance or not.
I really have unleashed the Two Minutes Hate with that last question.
As the Leave project founders on the rock of reality, you would have thought that it might be time for Leavers to reflect on how they might have sought to build a consensus rather than ram through majoritarian extremism. But it seems that time has yet to arrive.
I really have unleashed the Two Minutes Hate with that last question.
As the Leave project founders on the rock of reality, you would have thought that it might be time for Leavers to reflect on how they might have sought to build a consensus rather than ram through majoritarian extremism. But it seems that time has yet to arrive.
Ah, good old p-hacking. The academic fraud of choice of the true charlatan academic or the tenured old shitbag who just wants to troll Twitter until he retires.
Mrs C, I mostly agree. Though if I were diagnosed with a fatal illness, I might take up smoking as I wouldn't need to fear the consequences.
I remember there was some news a few years back that one medical team had found that nicotine gave relief from Ulcerative Colitis. They did not recommend smoking as a cure, but rather transdermal nicotine patches. If you had Crohn's disease then nicotine made it worse.
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo.
You know what annoys me about a PV? It's the implicit assumption that the political class may simply declare themselves unable to do their job, and demand we rescue them from their ignominy.
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
Voting for Brexit, then watching the political class run around like headless chickens for 2 years before telling them to forget it could be thought of as the ultimate way to teach them a lesson.
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo.
You know what annoys me about a PV? It's the implicit assumption that the political class may simply declare themselves unable to do their job, and demand we rescue them from their ignominy.
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
Voting for Brexit, then watching the political class run around like headless chickens for 2 years before telling them to forget it could be thought of as the ultimate way to teach them a lesson.
It’s nonsense. My 4th finger is longer than my index finger on both hands and I am not gay. Mind you, I have reached that blessed stage of life where gardening rather than dating is of much more interest. Sex is a good excuse for a nice lie down and a cup of tea.
I quite like the idea of Charlie Chaplin so we can all think of £50 notes as "funny money".
I've never actually seen any Charlie Chaplin - is his stuff still actually funny, or is it one of those things that has not aged well, like the first seasons of The Simpsons?
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo.
You know what annoys me about a PV? It's the implicit assumption that the political class may simply declare themselves unable to do their job, and demand we rescue them from their ignominy.
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
Voting for Brexit, then watching the political class run around like headless chickens for 2 years before telling them to forget it could be thought of as the ultimate way to teach them a lesson.
Electorate: We demand this impossible thing Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Of course, impossible thing MEANS impossible thing. Reality: This is impossible Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. Impossible thing means impossible thing means impossible thing Reality: Nope, still impossible. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. The ball is in reality's court. Reality: You know, maybe there's no point talking to you. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hello? Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Is this thing on? Unwisely-ingratiating PM: ... Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hey electorate, have you got a second?
I don't think there should be another referendum. People change their minds all the time and there is no mid-term GE following any particular set of polls against the prevailing status quo.
You know what annoys me about a PV? It's the implicit assumption that the political class may simply declare themselves unable to do their job, and demand we rescue them from their ignominy.
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
Voting for Brexit, then watching the political class run around like headless chickens for 2 years before telling them to forget it could be thought of as the ultimate way to teach them a lesson.
Electorate: We demand this impossible thing Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Of course, impossible thing MEANS impossible thing. Reality: This is impossible Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. Impossible thing means impossible thing means impossible thing Reality: Nope, still impossible. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. The ball is in reality's court. Reality: You know, maybe there's no point talking to you. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hello? Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Is this thing on? Unwisely-ingratiating PM: ... Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hey electorate, have you got a second?
Ah, good old p-hacking. The academic fraud of choice of the true charlatan academic or the tenured old shitbag who just wants to troll Twitter until he retires.
Your attacks on puce faced gammons would work better if you didn't sound so puce faced about everything yourself.
On the substantive point I agree. It says:
"14 sets of male twins the gay twin had slightly more 'male-typical' hands than their straight brother but the difference between the two was not viewed as significant."
CBA to find the actual report but I bet "Not viewed as significant" is a misrepresentation of "not statistically significant" which means not actually a thing at all.
I really have unleashed the Two Minutes Hate with that last question.
As the Leave project founders on the rock of reality, you would have thought that it might be time for Leavers to reflect on how they might have sought to build a consensus rather than ram through majoritarian extremism. But it seems that time has yet to arrive.
The people you cited were responsible for Brexit. They rammed through the majoritarian extremism of mass immigration without consensus, and when it was sought via the referendum, the truth emerged that it there was none
Most of the Colossus machines were quite literally smashed up on Churchill's direct orders. I do not think that claim is controversial. A couple were said to have been retained by GCHQ for espionage purposes.
Ah, you're changing your position - you're now saying 'most of'. And a couple *were* retained for over a decade.
But remember: *) Colossus's tech was old and a dead-end. Many of the people involved went on to work on its immediate successors in the private sector (e.g. Newman et al). Some Colossus parts even went with him to Manchester. Hence the government contributed to our early lead in privaste-sector computing. *) The tech was changing so rapidly that Colossus rapidly became outdated. *) There was less need for decryption once Germany and Japan had been defeated. WHy keep 12 machines?
You are utterly wrong.
An interesting question is what replaced Colossus at GCHQ. I've never read what computers they used after - and if the two Colossus's left were kept for training, what they training *for*?
I am right and if anyone else on pb cares, they can see for themselves.
Comments
You know the old dictum about military studies - 'Amateurs study tactics, professionals logistics'? There's a parallel one in the crypt world - 'Amateurs worry about algorithms, professionals key distribution'.
You are wrong, just as you were with your claims about Colossus.
But I assume Dr Foxy will never be visiting Canada again for this sin of leglisation.
https://twitter.com/POLITICOEurope/status/1052461793124192257
Keeping it it secret was a reflection of of the reflex towards secrecy over openness within the intelligence services. It's not clear that this has actually benefited the UK in the long term.
Hindsight is wonderful ...
So, tell me about how Colossus was 'smashed up', and how it led to us throwing away our lead in computing - when the exact opposite was the case?
I'd assume the goal is for the same laws to apply to tobacco as to cannabis - no smoking in restaurants, bars etc (But allowed at home)
If that's wrong, I stand to be corrected (I haven't looked this up in detail)
Selling tobacco doesn't send you to prison.
The criminal justice system isn't creaking at the seams because of tobacco cases.
I see no reason to treat tobacco and cannabis any differently. They should both be discouraged but legal.
Andy's suggested inconsistency is in legislating to restrict tobacco while legislating to widen wacco-tobacco.
He's expensive, plasticky and not really accepted anywhere.
But then, I'm baffled people drink a lot, or eat too much. It just seems like too much effort.
And they never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them on board?
She just 'wafffles' and has no real amswers. This is another example of an interview with a Brexiteer who trys to wing it.
Why do we have such light weight politicians
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of motion of any kind coming out of the Maybot's fuehrerbunker.
I think it's more worthwhile considering whether the triumvirate (and Major) will persuade EU bigwigs, and what allies they have amongst MPs, peers, and senior civil servants in the UK.
We could then add a third circle listing all those who talk sanctimoniously about womens’ rights, the #MeToo movement and their outrage at the behaviour of people like Trump and Kavanaugh.
We might well have the first Venn diagram consisting of 3 circles overlaid on top of each other.
i) The EU is absolubtely in the DNA of Clegg, Blair and Heseltine. They see it as a force for good, a well of prosperity and a backstop against state aid (Guess why Corbyn is less than full throated in his support)
ii) Very long odds against that any of them could ever be bought on board with any sort of Brexit. Perhaps Clegg with a Brexit that remains in the SM and CU, Blair is far too sure of himself on everything to change his mind; probably not with Heseltine.
The race starts at 7.10pm.
Probably a domestic sporting clash.
But we may as well stop this, since it's just going to end in circular divisiveness about xenophobia and insincere protestations of a lack of emotional hurt.
Osborne has grandee credentials twice over, as a former chancellor and as an influential newspaper editor.
The gammon will never run out of things to express puce-face self-righteous fury about.
There is zero point trying to make gammons not be furious. It is simply their nature.
Politicians never accept they are wrong, they carry on regardless. If people like Blair, Heseltine & Clegg would have listened to voters, the mass immigration that led to Brexit would never have happened. How can you bring on board people who are responsible for the mass revolt?
Makes it sound like you're a kid playing a peculiarly niche version of top trumps.
But remember:
*) Colossus's tech was old and a dead-end. Many of the people involved went on to work on its immediate successors in the private sector (e.g. Newman et al). Some Colossus parts even went with him to Manchester. Hence the government contributed to our early lead in privaste-sector computing.
*) The tech was changing so rapidly that Colossus rapidly became outdated.
*) There was less need for decryption once Germany and Japan had been defeated. WHy keep 12 machines?
You are utterly wrong.
An interesting question is what replaced Colossus at GCHQ. I've never read what computers they used after - and if the two Colossus's left were kept for training, what they training *for*?
I do agree it will lead to a lot of soul-searching about how we ended up in that position.
That said, we should be aiming for the softest of soft Brexits, BINO, and any time tossers like Bridgen or that dickhead on DP yesterday start declaiming their usual ignorant bollocks about Ireland or how Norway is in the EU, or some other moronic pronouncement, then they should be twatted round the head with a large wet fish. Several times.
Mr. Russell, ironic too, that Blair and Clegg both included a referendum on Lisbon in their manifestos, and neither backed it when the time came. Doubly ironic Clegg had a three line whip, demanding a 'real' referendum on an In/Out basis.
Clegg - Who?
Hezza - Knifed the most successful Tory Prime Minister of the 20th Century causing a rupture within the party that hasn't healed to this day and was a key part of the election campaign which saw the Conservatives suffer their worst defeat since 1832!
Maybe the prominent former politicians should ask themselves why so much of the public are so completely unreconciled to their creation?
And they (the politicians) never ask themselves the obvious supplementary question: was there anything we could have done to bring them (the public) on board?
Handel would be my choice. A great musician and also a nod to the contribution of immigrants.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1052496089134325760
It is not the electorate's job to save the government from the holes they have dug for themselves. It is the electorate's job to dig holes and then push governments in.
As the Leave project founders on the rock of reality, you would have thought that it might be time for Leavers to reflect on how they might have sought to build a consensus rather than ram through majoritarian extremism. But it seems that time has yet to arrive.
Mrs C, lots of people like getting het up. Including some Remain types who enjoy insulting half their countrymen. It's not unique to either side in the referendum, or those of any particular political persuasion. Pointing out some people are cross doesn't tell us whether they have a legitimate grievance or not.
https://twitter.com/MailOnline/status/1052496703750893569
I see an Hitachi's Class 802 has caused chaos outside Paddington this morning.
Hitachi rail really aren't having a very good year ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45885867
(This might be slightly unfair to Hitachi if NR's mucked up. But I'd bet on Hitachi given the fact they can't seem to design trains to spec...)
May has been trying to build consensus.
She's just...
really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really...
bad at it.
Surely you know your sexuality based on who you shag, or wish to shag?
It's like eye colour indicating if you like butter or not.
Indeed.
I quite like the idea of Charlie Chaplin so we can all think of £50 notes as "funny money".
Post of the day (so far) William!
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Of course, impossible thing MEANS impossible thing.
Reality: This is impossible
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. Impossible thing means impossible thing means impossible thing
Reality: Nope, still impossible.
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed. The ball is in reality's court.
Reality: You know, maybe there's no point talking to you.
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Nothing has changed.
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hello?
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Is this thing on?
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: ...
Unwisely-ingratiating PM: Hey electorate, have you got a second?
On the substantive point I agree. It says:
"14 sets of male twins the gay twin had slightly more 'male-typical' hands than their straight brother but the difference between the two was not viewed as significant."
CBA to find the actual report but I bet "Not viewed as significant" is a misrepresentation of "not statistically significant" which means not actually a thing at all.
Or we can troll the monetarists by having Keynes.