politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Hillary is now even more than reliant on the First Lady to get

weejonnie said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

In 2016, the USA would literally have done better to choose a random citizen as president, by lottery, rather that Hillary or Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Not necessarily Sean. They might have got Sarah Palin that way.

Palin would have been better than either. I genuinely believe that.

Now come on Sean. I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an ardent fan of Clinton or Trump, but they're both better than Palin. She combines the political acumen of Trump with the communication skills of Hilary, the sex drive of Bill and the gender politics awareness of Fiorina.

Or were you thinking of one of her daughters?

I think a Trump presidency OR a Clinton presidency will embarrass and disgrace America. Trump's policies are nativist and probably damaging, Clinton's are non existent, she relies on a gross, hypocritical sense of entitlement as a woman and as a Clinton.

Palin was a smart working class white woman who fought her way up through very tough circumstances. She sounded a bit mad, sometimes, but Americans always sound a bit mad to Brits. She might have been an American Thatcher. We will never know.

If I were a Yank I'd vote Palin over Trump or Hillary

I wonder what people thought over here in the (pre-internet) days when an aging B-movie actor, whose major claim to fame was starring with a chimp, won the American election?

Not quite true. Ronnie had been governor of Americas populous state for eight years.

Trump however...

weejonnie said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

In 2016, the USA would literally have done better to choose a random citizen as president, by lottery, rather that Hillary or Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Not necessarily Sean. They might have got Sarah Palin that way.

Palin would have been better than either. I genuinely believe that.

Now come on Sean. I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an ardent fan of Clinton or Trump, but they're both better than Palin. She combines the political acumen of Trump with the communication skills of Hilary, the sex drive of Bill and the gender politics awareness of Fiorina.

Or were you thinking of one of her daughters?

I think a Trump presidency OR a Clinton presidency will embarrass and disgrace America. Trump's policies are nativist and probably damaging, Clinton's are non existent, she relies on a gross, hypocritical sense of entitlement as a woman and as a Clinton.

Palin was a smart working class white woman who fought her way up through very tough circumstances. She sounded a bit mad, sometimes, but Americans always sound a bit mad to Brits. She might have been an American Thatcher. We will never know.

If I were a Yank I'd vote Palin over Trump or Hillary

I wonder what people thought over here in the (pre-internet) days when an aging B-movie actor, whose major claim to fame was starring with a chimp, won the American election?

Except his major claim to fame was being a successful governor of California.

MikeK said:

Gardenwalker said:

The Trumpers with mad, staring eyes are rife on here tonight! Is it a full moon?

It's only Halloween, where Trumpers in hairy masks, chase Gardenwalkers all over the place.

weejonnie said:

Trump making capital out of another woman.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/29/trump-attorney-donald-gift-homeless-woman-abused-protecting-star-hollywood-walk-fame/

What I found particularly revolting about the assault on the homeless woman was all those people standing around either doing nothing or laughing.

glw said:

SeanT said:

And then you hear calls for President Michelle Obama. My god. Do they not see how that looks?

It is strange that a country that likes to think of itself free of the class system, and finds monarchies particularly amusing, should so frequently throw up political dynasties, and not just at the level of President but at all levels.

Trudeaux in Canada
Kims in Korea
Nehru-Gandhis in India
Benns in the UK
Assads in Syria

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Trudeaux in Canada
Kims in Korea
Nehru-Gandhis in India
Benns in the UK
Assads in Syria

Oh I'm not saying the US is unique, but the extent of it in a society which is meant eschew hereditary power and where "everyone can grow up to be President" is odd. In theory Americans ought to be dead against such nonsense, in reality they lap it up.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

glw said:

SeanT said:

And then you hear calls for President Michelle Obama. My god. Do they not see how that looks?

It is strange that a country that likes to think of itself free of the class system, and finds monarchies particularly amusing, should so frequently throw up political dynasties, and not just at the level of President but at all levels.

Trudeaux in Canada
Kims in Korea
Nehru-Gandhis in India
Benns in the UK
Assads in Syria

Neither Benn has been more than a cabinet member. The rest have had the number one job.

foxinsoxuk said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

glw said:

SeanT said:

And then you hear calls for President Michelle Obama. My god. Do they not see how that looks?

It is strange that a country that likes to think of itself free of the class system, and finds monarchies particularly amusing, should so frequently throw up political dynasties, and not just at the level of President but at all levels.

Trudeaux in Canada
Kims in Korea
Nehru-Gandhis in India
Benns in the UK
Assads in Syria

Neither Benn has been more than a cabinet member. The rest have had the number one job.

We have to use what we have.

SeanT said:

I'm really not drunk. Just being lucid and honest. A cursory examination of Bill Clinton's sexual history raises some very very very serious questions. In respect to OGH I won't use incendiary words, but just go to Mr Google QC and introduce the words "Clinton" and "Epstein" - amongst many possibles - and you will find ample evidence of quite disturbing unpleasantness. I'm horrified - and I'm a drunken roue.

Lefties who deny this are in denial. Bill and Hillary have some Macbethian compact to ignore each other's grotesque failings in pursuit of political power, as a team. FFS why is America faced with a choice between Trump and Hillary? It's wretched.

This will go down as the most depressing presidential election in modern history, because of BOTH candidates.

It is a country going through rapid demographic change and unaccepted relative decline with huge levels of inequality, throw in the shameful media and chaotic government Trump was inevitable. But Hillary wasnt, the left had an answer to Trump a dangerous demagouge in Bernie Sanders. Whilst he seems too left wing for us bear in mind HALF of Americans are poor and a quarter are in poverty. And many millions don't have healthcare, the inequality in America is grotesque and needs a sort of post war fix like Britain had.

Stodge City

stodge said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Stodge City

Pardon ?

Carry On Cowboy on ITV

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

America will be fine. If whoever they elect is a dud, they will chuck them out in at most four years.

Looking back, America seems to make good choices more often than bad.

Anyone following Obama would look second rate

Obama is the very definition of second rate. He has presided over continuing and accelerating relative American decline - cf Syria - and has done little at home apart from enact a fairly cack-handed health reform. He is, however, a great speech maker and a fine symbol of racial harmony (not that it seems to benefit or console urban American black youth under his rule).

America is dwindling, and yet Europeanising. Obama represents that well.

Obama is not second rate. Elected two months after Lehmann Bros and with the coalition still deep in Iraq, he did well just to keep show on the road at the start.

He had world statesmen like Gordon Brown to lean on.

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

America will be fine. If whoever they elect is a dud, they will chuck them out in at most four years.

Looking back, America seems to make good choices more often than bad.

Anyone following Obama would look second rate

Obama is the very definition of second rate. He has presided over continuing and accelerating relative American decline - cf Syria - and has done little at home apart from enact a fairly cack-handed health reform. He is, however, a great speech maker and a fine symbol of racial harmony (not that it seems to benefit or console urban American black youth under his rule).

America is dwindling, and yet Europeanising. Obama represents that well.

Obama was JFK but ironically while Hillary or Trump may not have his appeal they could be Nixon or LBJ and actually get more things done, despite having a similarly shady record

Shameful media: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/28/opinions/fbi-director-comey-should-resign-opinion-callan/index.html

Jonathan said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

America will be fine. If whoever they elect is a dud, they will chuck them out in at most four years.

Looking back, America seems to make good choices more often than bad.

Anyone following Obama would look second rate

Obama is the very definition of second rate. He has presided over continuing and accelerating relative American decline - cf Syria - and has done little at home apart from enact a fairly cack-handed health reform. He is, however, a great speech maker and a fine symbol of racial harmony (not that it seems to benefit or console urban American black youth under his rule).

America is dwindling, and yet Europeanising. Obama represents that well.

Obama is not second rate. Elected two months after Lehmann Bros and with the coalition still deep in Iraq, he did well just to keep show on the road at the start.

He had world statesmen like Gordon Brown to lean on.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

Seriously. To become president at that moment and maintain confidence was a huge achievement.

Just imagine if these two had been on offer in 2008.

Well, Hillary was on offer in 2008 and to be honest I think if she and Obama had got each others' jobs at that point, the world would be better off now. (If only because Obama would now be a candidate.)

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

America will be fine. If whoever they elect is a dud, they will chuck them out in at most four years.

Looking back, America seems to make good choices more often than bad.

Anyone following Obama would look second rate

Obama is the very definition of second rate. He has presided over continuing and accelerating relative American decline - cf Syria - and has done little at home apart from enact a fairly cack-handed health reform. He is, however, a great speech maker and a fine symbol of racial harmony (not that it seems to benefit or console urban American black youth under his rule).

America is dwindling, and yet Europeanising. Obama represents that well.

Obama is not second rate. Elected two months after Lehmann Bros and with the coalition still deep in Iraq, he did well just to keep show on the road at the start.

He had world statesmen like Gordon Brown to lean on.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

Seriously. To become president at that moment and maintain confidence was a huge achievement.

Just imagine if these two had been on offer in 2008.

Well, Hillary was on offer in 2008 and to be honest I think if she and Obama had got each others' jobs at that point, the world would be better off now. (If only because Obama would now be a candidate.)

Obama was a candidate for change, he was ideally suited for 2008, not for now, Hillary is a candidate of experience, she is better suited for 2016 and 8 years of a Democratic administration

Fiona Syms, former wife of Tory MP Robert Syms, standing as an independent in the Richmond by-election on a pro Heathrow, pro EU ticket to challenge both Zac Goldsmith and the LDs
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lioness-back-to-zap-zac-2bvnb70r8

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

weejonnie said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

In 2016, the USA would literally have done better to choose a random citizen as president, by lottery, rather that Hillary or Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Not necessarily Sean. They might have got Sarah Palin that way.

Palin would have been better than either. I genuinely believe that.

Now come on Sean. I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an ardent fan of Clinton or Trump, but they're both better than Palin. She combines the political acumen of Trump with the communication skills of Hilary, the sex drive of Bill and the gender politics awareness of Fiorina.

Or were you thinking of one of her daughters?

I think a Trump presidency OR a Clinton presidency will embarrass and disgrace America. Trump's

If I were a Yank I'd vote Palin over Trump or Hillary

I wonder what people thought over here in the (pre-internet) days when an aging B-movie actor, whose major claim to fame was starring with a chimp, won the American election?

Except his major claim to fame was being a successful governor of California.

Reagan was a fucking titan compared to Trump or H Clinton. What a shameful state of affairs for the world's mightiest democracy. SORT IT OUT, AMERICA

And then you hear calls for President Michelle Obama. My god. Do they not see how that looks?

America is Byzantium now, not the Rome of the Caesars, let alone the Republic. Its relative decline is rapid, its decadence is, well, Byzantine.

Byzantium was the product of a split Rome, America is still the most powerful nation on earth and while China will almost certainly overtake it in gdp terms it is very unlikely to overtake it in gdp per capita terms, in 50 years time I expect more people will still want to live in NYC and LA than Shanghai and Beijing. China is the world's most populous nation so it should be its most powerful nation, it is only now moving to become so precisely because it became more like the USA and less like Mao

When the Trumpsters ask "what have you got to lose?"; they forget that for all its current difficulties, America and Americans are very rich and powerful. They have a lot to lose.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-destroys-4-Pakistani-posts-inflict-heavy-casualties/articleshow/55133930.cms

Military skirmishes between India and Pakistan...

williamglenn said:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-destroys-4-Pakistani-posts-inflict-heavy-casualties/articleshow/55133930.cms

Military skirmishes between India and Pakistan...

A friend of mine recently returned from India reckons it is likely to turn into a proper war. Very bellicose talk and actions on both sides.

AndyJS said:

Latest results from the Iceland election:

http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2016/

Doesn't look as though the Pirate-Left alliance is going to come even close to power - another case of opinion polls going askew?

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/792468388547272704

The prefabs idea is stupid. You can't get mortgages on prefabs.You have to go to a very specialist mortgage provider. They are a rubbish investment and are not great to live in.

Honestly, this shit happens every ten years. Somebody gets charged with solving the housing crisis and the first thing they do is look at the building method. Pods, structural insulated panels, polystyrene breezeblocks with poured concrete cores, log cabins, converted containers, houses on stilts, timber frame, prefabs, huf hauses, passiv houses, stupid German construction, stupid Scandi construction, stupid American construction, all sorts of stupid stupid stuff you can't get mortgages on. None of these address the problem: too many people chasing too many houses and the number of households being created each year exceeds the number of houses being built each year, for every year since, what, the mid 90's? Aaargh...

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

SeanT said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

weejonnie said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

ydoethur said:

SeanT said:

In 2016, the USA would literally have done better to choose a random citizen as president, by lottery, rather that Hillary or Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

Not necessarily Sean. They might have got Sarah Palin that way.

Palin would have been better than either. I genuinely believe that.

Now come on Sean. I don't think anyone would accuse me of being an ardent fan of Clinton or Trump, but they're both better than Palin. She combines the political acumen of Trump with the communication skills of Hilary, the sex drive of Bill and the gender politics awareness of Fiorina.

Or were you thinking of one of her daughters?

I think a Trump presidency OR a Clinton presidency will embarrass and disgrace America. Trump's

If I were a Yank I'd vote Palin over Trump or Hillary

I wonder what people thought over here in the (pre-internet) days when an aging B-movie actor, whose major claim to fame was starring with a chimp, won the American election?

Except his major claim to fame was being a successful governor of California.

Reagan was a fucking titan compared to Trump or H Clinton. What a shameful state of affairs for the world's mightiest democracy. SORT IT OUT, AMERICA

And then you hear calls for President Michelle Obama. My god. Do they not see how that looks?

America is Byzantium now, not the Rome of the Caesars, let alone the Republic. Its relative decline is rapid, its decadence is, well, Byzantine.

Byzantium was the product of a split Rome, America is still the most powerful nation on earth and while China will almost certainly overtake it in gdp terms it is very unlikely to overtake it in gdp per capita terms, in 50 years time I expect more people will still want to live in NYC and LA than Shanghai and Beijing. China is the world's most populous nation so it should be its most powerful nation, it is only now moving to become so precisely because it became more like the USA and less like Mao

When the Trumpsters ask "what have you got to lose?"; they forget that for all its current difficulties, America and Americans are very rich and powerful. They have a lot to lose.

Indeed, what Americans are seeing is relative decline, they may no longer be as many multiple times more wealthy than the average citizen of the world they were 50 years ago however they are still comfortably better off

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Indeed, what Americans are seeing is relative decline, they may no longer be as many multiple times more wealthy than the average citizen of the world they were 50 years ago however they are still comfortably better off

It's not only relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2014.png

Still an awful lot to lose...

Gamblers should know about not trying to rashly win back losses.

foxinsoxuk said:

williamglenn said:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-destroys-4-Pakistani-posts-inflict-heavy-casualties/articleshow/55133930.cms

Military skirmishes between India and Pakistan...

A friend of mine recently returned from India reckons it is likely to turn into a proper war. Very bellicose talk and actions on both sides.

Possibly not the best time to post this trailer, then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_vr6KALYrY

NickPalmer said:

AndyJS said:

Latest results from the Iceland election:

http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2016/

Doesn't look as though the Pirate-Left alliance is going to come even close to power - another case of opinion polls going askew?

Possibly. Looks like the party of the current prime minister is going to get less than 10%.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Indeed, what Americans are seeing is relative decline, they may no longer be as many multiple times more wealthy than the average citizen of the world they were 50 years ago however they are still comfortably better off

It's not only relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Real_Household_Median_Income_thru_2014.png

There has been some decline in household income from the post war high of the mid 1990s as that graph shows, especially as a result of the 2008 crash, however even on that graph household wealth in the US is still well above where it was in 1985

NickPalmer said:

In fact, the biggest winners seem to be Regeneration, who are primarily a vehicle for people who want Iceland to join the EU. Might they pass us on our way out?

Regeneration are presently on 10% ie about the same as the pro EU LDs are now polling and in 4th place, as they did not stand last time hardly surprising they are the biggest gainers. The Eurosceptic Independence Party on the other hand is on 31% and the largest party

viewcode said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/792468388547272704

The prefabs idea is stupid. You can't get mortgages on prefabs.You have to go to a very specialist mortgage provider. They are a rubbish investment and are not great to live in.

Honestly, this shit happens every ten years. Somebody gets charged with solving the housing crisis and the first thing they do is look at the building method. Pods, structural insulated panels, polystyrene breezeblocks with poured concrete cores, log cabins, converted containers, houses on stilts, timber frame, prefabs, huf hauses, passiv houses, stupid German construction, stupid Scandi construction, stupid American construction, all sorts of stupid stupid stuff you can't get mortgages on. None of these address the problem: too many people chasing too many houses and the number of households being created each year exceeds the number of houses being built each year, for every year since, what, the mid 90's? Aaargh...

Quite. If nothing else, brick and block can go up pretty damn fast..

From what I see in the countryside South of London, people are gearing up for a massive building spree - councils planning on a big increases in parking at stations etc.

The reason?

Nimbyism is all very well - but if you have 10 acres of garden that is a pain to mow, and you work out how much that 5 acres of that is worth as housing.... I know a few places where this is reaching critical mass - enough are going to cash in to beat the nimbys at the planning stage...

GeoffM said:

foxinsoxuk said:

williamglenn said:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Army-destroys-4-Pakistani-posts-inflict-heavy-casualties/articleshow/55133930.cms

Military skirmishes between India and Pakistan...

A friend of mine recently returned from India reckons it is likely to turn into a proper war. Very bellicose talk and actions on both sides.

I think we sell weapons to both sides - which of course is the correct approach to any foreign war.

Absolutely. Who cares how many kids die, as long as we make our cut, right?

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

williamglenn said:

Jonathan said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

America will be fine. If whoever they elect is a dud, they will chuck them out in at most four years.

Looking back, America seems to make good choices more often than bad.

Anyone following Obama would look second rate

Obama is the very definition of second rate. He has presided over continuing and accelerating relative American decline - cf Syria - and has done little at home apart from enact a fairly cack-handed health reform. He is, however, a great speech maker and a fine symbol of racial harmony (not that it seems to benefit or console urban American black youth under his rule).

America is dwindling, and yet Europeanising. Obama represents that well.

Obama is not second rate. Elected two months after Lehmann Bros and with the coalition still deep in Iraq, he did well just to keep show on the road at the start.

He had world statesmen like Gordon Brown to lean on.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

Seriously. To become president at that moment and maintain confidence was a huge achievement.

Just imagine if these two had been on offer in 2008.

Well, Hillary was on offer in 2008 and to be honest I think if she and Obama had got each others' jobs at that point, the world would be better off now. (If only because Obama would now be a candidate.)

It's not obvious that she:d have beaten McCain.

Is the Betfair market trying to tell us something? Only the following runners are available both to back and lay:

Trump 4.45

Clinton 1.315
Sanders 145
Biden 420
Kaine 495

There will be more surprises before the election. Trump has now reversed the damage of the Second Debate And Pussy combo. Reverse the hit he took in the first debate and he'll be back to where he was after his opponent semi-collapsed on 11 September. The momentum is with him. Is Jennifer Hawkins all they've got? Pathetic.

According to the Daily Mail, "Trump has repeatedly raised fears about the integrity of the U.S. voting system. Yet experts say voter fraud is rare."

Those lines are so typical of the British media nowadays, "quality" and otherwise. They might as well write "Kim il-Sung, he says".

Dromedary said:

According to the Daily Mail, "Trump has repeatedly raised fears about the integrity of the U.S. voting system. Yet experts say voter fraud is rare."

Those lines are so typical of the British media nowadays, "quality" and otherwise. They might as well write "Kim il-Sung, he says".

What do you wan? He is being reckless.

williamglenn said:

This is a must read piece.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/trump-campaign-final-days.html

“I got really mad at him the other day,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told me. “He said, ‘I think we’ll win, and if not, that’s okay too. And I said, ‘It’s not okay! You can’t say that! Your dry-cleaning bill is like the annual salaries of the people who came to your rallies, and they believe in you!’ ”

He's making fools of so many vulnerable people. Sad really.

Here's a surprise - poll just out:

Clinton +4 in Alaska.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/#now

williamglenn said:

Trump extends lead in the LA Times poll.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

Why does the LA Times usually give Trump better numbers than the other pollsters?

edmundintokyo said:

Dromedary said:

According to the Daily Mail, "Trump has repeatedly raised fears about the integrity of the U.S. voting system. Yet experts say voter fraud is rare."

Those lines are so typical of the British media nowadays, "quality" and otherwise. They might as well write "Kim il-Sung, he says".

TBF some of the voting machine setups are so nasty that there's no way to know whether votes are being stolen or not. This should worry the Dems more than the GOP right now, since the Republicans run most of the swing states.

The whole concept of using computers as part of the voting process is deeply flawed. Whether it's badly calibrated touch screens or something more sinister, it is just too difficult for the results to be properly audited without a clear paper trail that the voter can see and that can be recounted if necessary.
Sometimes technology just isn't the answer.

AndyJS said:

MikeL said:

I've been trying to log on to The Times website for over an hour.

Just get a completely blank page - nothing at all.

I don't think it's my computer - all other sites are working normally and I've checked the address.

Is it really the case that one of the biggest media organisations in the world can't manage to keep a website working?

If so, why? The internet has been in widespread use for what, 25 years?

Why is it still such an almighty struggle to both keep it working and for people to use it?

When will it become like all other household products which operate at effectively 100% reliability?

It's not working for me either. I think the internet has been in widespread use for about 18 years or so. 25 years ago is when the WWW was invented.

The frightening thing is not so much that the entire Times website has gone down - these things happen - but that no one seems capable of fixing it even after two hours. You might have imagined that an organisation such as this would have some sort of back up system to come to the rescue immediately, but seemingly not .
I have been similarly shocked in the past when the likes of Betfair has gone down for an extended period.

MikeK said:

AndyJS said:

MikeL said:

I've been trying to log on to The Times website for over an hour.

Just get a completely blank page - nothing at all.

I don't think it's my computer - all other sites are working normally and I've checked the address.

Is it really the case that one of the biggest media organisations in the world can't manage to keep a website working?

If so, why? The internet has been in widespread use for what, 25 years?

Why is it still such an almighty struggle to both keep it working and for people to use it?

When will it become like all other household products which operate at effectively 100% reliability?

It's not working for me either. I think the internet has been in widespread use for about 18 years or so. 25 years ago is when the WWW was invented.

Good morning. I think the problem is more prosaic than that, simply the change of time back an hour has screwed the works. LOL

That's the most likely explaination to be honest. The content server is up and running, but it looks like the user login page can't see billing status from the subscription server/database. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two or three servers involved, and one of them now has the wrong time on it, causing the problems. When the duty admin gets woken up by his phone ringing, (followed by his home phone, and his wife's phone...) he'll probably just need to change the clock and reboot it.

Sandpit said:

MikeK said:

AndyJS said:

MikeL said:

I've been trying to log on to The Times website for over an hour.

Just get a completely blank page - nothing at all.

I don't think it's my computer - all other sites are working normally and I've checked the address.

Is it really the case that one of the biggest media organisations in the world can't manage to keep a website working?

If so, why? The internet has been in widespread use for what, 25 years?

Why is it still such an almighty struggle to both keep it working and for people to use it?

When will it become like all other household products which operate at effectively 100% reliability?

It's not working for me either. I think the internet has been in widespread use for about 18 years or so. 25 years ago is when the WWW was invented.

Good morning. I think the problem is more prosaic than that, simply the change of time back an hour has screwed the works. LOL

That's the most likely explaination to be honest. The content server is up and running, but it looks like the user login page can't see billing status from the subscription server/database. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two or three servers involved, and one of them now has the wrong time on it, causing the problems. When the duty admin gets woken up by his phone ringing, (followed by his home phone, and his wife's phone...) he'll probably just need to change the clock and reboot it.

Ah, time zones. That's why everything should be in Unix time, and only converted when it needs to be displayed on a page.

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

MikeK said:

AndyJS said:

MikeL said:

I've been trying to log on to The Times website for over an hour.

Just get a completely blank page - nothing at all.

I don't think it's my computer - all other sites are working normally and I've checked the address.

Is it really the case that one of the biggest media organisations in the world can't manage to keep a website working?

If so, why? The internet has been in widespread use for what, 25 years?

Why is it still such an almighty struggle to both keep it working and for people to use it?

When will it become like all other household products which operate at effectively 100% reliability?

It's not working for me either. I think the internet has been in widespread use for about 18 years or so. 25 years ago is when the WWW was invented.

Good morning. I think the problem is more prosaic than that, simply the change of time back an hour has screwed the works. LOL

That's the most likely explaination to be honest. The content server is up and running, but it looks like the user login page can't see billing status from the subscription server/database. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two or three servers involved, and one of them now has the wrong time on it, causing the problems. When the duty admin gets woken up by his phone ringing, (followed by his home phone, and his wife's phone...) he'll probably just need to change the clock and reboot it.

Ah, time zones. That's why everything should be in Unix time, and only converted when it needs to be displayed on a page.

That approach should be good for another 22 years, anyway!

Anyone who programs computers should read this. Date and time is more difficult than people think it is!
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

MikeK said:

AndyJS said:

MikeL said:

I've been trying to log on to The Times website for over an hour.

Just get a completely blank page - nothing at all.

I don't think it's my computer - all other sites are working normally and I've checked the address.

Is it really the case that one of the biggest media organisations in the world can't manage to keep a website working?

If so, why? The internet has been in widespread use for what, 25 years?

Why is it still such an almighty struggle to both keep it working and for people to use it?

When will it become like all other household products which operate at effectively 100% reliability?

It's not working for me either. I think the internet has been in widespread use for about 18 years or so. 25 years ago is when the WWW was invented.

Good morning. I think the problem is more prosaic than that, simply the change of time back an hour has screwed the works. LOL

That's the most likely explaination to be honest. The content server is up and running, but it looks like the user login page can't see billing status from the subscription server/database. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say there are two or three servers involved, and one of them now has the wrong time on it, causing the problems. When the duty admin gets woken up by his phone ringing, (followed by his home phone, and his wife's phone...) he'll probably just need to change the clock and reboot it.

Ah, time zones. That's why everything should be in Unix time, and only converted when it needs to be displayed on a page.

That approach should be good for another 22 years, anyway!

Anyone who programs computers should read this. Date and time is more difficult than people think it is!
http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time

Astronomers have it even worse... sidereal time, barycentric time.. ugh

Ooh, never used those. Sounds fun. Luckily I'm currently working in a time zone that doesn't change the clocks, so I'm confident that it won't be one of *my* servers with problems today!

In other news......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3886246/Chief-Whip-named-Michael-Gove-Minister-false-gay-affair-claim.html