politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest French presidential polling has one-time odds-favourite
Options
Comments
-
How long has the Sunday Sport being going?AlsoIndigo said:
Fake news has been around for longer than we thoughtFrancisUrquhart said:
But it was bollocks...AlsoIndigo said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088JosiasJessop said:
" it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance,"SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
No, it isn't clear. In the same way the Turing Test is nowhere near being passed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/10/world_to_captain_cyborg_youre_rumbled/
0 -
-
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
0 -
Entirely possible that by this time of the afternoon Sean t is muddling his zeros.Ishmael_Z said:
With the greatest respect, two words: Im. Possible. That is a car costing two smartphones, when a car needs much more processing power than two phones, plus wheels and motors and a roof and sides and such. $20 000 would be only slightly less incredible.SeanT said:ON-topic I just watched a Fox News report on self drive cars. Google have got a new version. The Fox News lady inside said it scared her - but no one died.
Google told Fox they expect these cars to be widely on sale within 6 years, or less.
Cost? The basic model is $2000
Yes, two thousand dollars. For a car that will safely and automatically drive you around urban streets. Electric and sustainable. $2000.
This is a revolution and it will be here within 6 years. It's gonna destroy tens of thousands of jobs, from the off, it will eventually destroy millions of jobs.
I've no doubt we will find alternative ways to give people work, but, Wow.
Unless I am wrong, in which case apols.0 -
No doubt. But there are downsides even to technologies of the future.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.
Look at email: all those things set down which should have been said not recorded electronically. There are bankers in prison ruing the day they ever used email or chat or text etc.
Personally, I like driving. I enjoy being in control in my own space with my own music. I like having a beautiful looking car. I hate being a passenger.
0 -
Has anyone else here tried to have a conversation using Google translate?williamglenn said:
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
0 -
Gareth Snell is up shit creek! As a normal member of the public with a decent job I wouldn't dream of writing anything like that on social media. It's incredible that a councillor or PPC could be that stupid.0
-
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.0 -
Kay Burley has to be one of the most ignorant and rudest news presenters I have ever seen on TV. She has no clue about her subject and so makes do by just talking over people.0
-
From 2009... they weren't wrong.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/worthless-ill-informed-opinions-in-every-home-by-2012-2009012915450 -
We all know what usually happens next when someone says this.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Quite and when did an e-mail ever get hacke......oh...wait....SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.0 -
The chairman has full confidence....david_herdson said:
We all know what usually happens next when someone says this.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Nope. Its almost normal for UKIP.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.0 -
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
Yes. It didn't end very well.OldKingCole said:
Has anyone else here tried to have a conversation using Google translate?williamglenn said:
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
I found that if you keep your sentences short and simple it isn't too bad.
Try a bit of nuance and then the problems start.
0 -
You've only just realised?Richard_Tyndall said:Kay Burley has to be one of the most ignorant and rudest news presenters I have ever seen on TV. She has no clue about her subject and so makes do by just talking over people.
0 -
King Cole, there was a video of using suchlike to translate the lyrics of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air's theme tune into one language, and back again, repeatedly. Here we are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMkJuDVJdTw0 -
Oh yes. It is truly dire. :-)OldKingCole said:
Has anyone else here tried to have a conversation using Google translate?williamglenn said:
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
0 -
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
Sorry, come late to this, although admittedly I made a comment upthread. Do I gather that Doc Niuttall has given a false address?Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.0 -
-
After Deep Blue/Kasparov in 1997 people were saying chess is easy-peasy, Go won't be cracked for decades - and it was, in a whisker under 2 decades. I have never thought the Turing test all that interesting or important - all Turing really did was invent conversations by email in a thought experiment, which I suppose was quite clever, but I would be very wary of making predictions about the test. If you look at Watson winning Jeopardy, you have to be a bit worried. For instance, I think it is reasonably credible that Watson could be programmed to be a PB contributor and if he got away with that for a year, that would be easily as good as passing a Turing test.AlsoIndigo said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088JosiasJessop said:
" it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance,"SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
No, it isn't clear. In the same way the Turing Test is nowhere near being passed.
Of course, this may already have happened...0 -
How can twitter help if you're being beaten up outside a gay bar?PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg0 -
England have lost 7 wickets for 8 runs.
Fecking shambles.0 -
Oh, so the address was of a property he owned but didn't live in? That's less bad (from an eligibility standpoint)LordWakefield said:twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/826832318253895680
0 -
I’m still mind-boggl;ing over a mix of driverless cars and motor-si taxis in Bangkok.SeanT said:
I agree. I like driving, I like owning a car, I like speeding down an empty road, the sense of freedom and autonomy.Cyclefree said:
No doubt. But there are downsides even to technologies of the future.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.
Look at email: all those things set down which should have been said not recorded electronically. There are bankers in prison ruing the day they ever used email or chat or text etc.
Personally, I like driving. I enjoy being in control in my own space with my own music. I like having a beautiful looking car. I hate being a passenger.
Similarly, I liked keeping letters from people I loved. And no doubt there were people who loved a horse and carriage, and the culture that went with it. Some authors still prefer typewriters to laptops, others prefer longhand.
But in each case there is a vastly superior beneficial tech which will just overwhelm.
Think of the benefits of electric, driverless cars in London. No fumes, no pollution, no drives, no garages,no worries about parking, no need for petrol stations, no need for tyre shops - they will all go the way of horse manure, and pure finders, and livery, and coaching inns.0 -
PlatoSaid said:
Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.0 -
Helped in The Village.felix said:
How can twitter help if you're being beaten up outside a gay bar?PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
With everyone* now owning a smart phone, people took pictures of an assault, the picture of the perpetrator was shared and helped track him down.
*Well not everyone.0 -
You are far too polite.TheScreamingEagles said:England have lost 7 wickets for 8 runs.
Fecking shambles.0 -
Is Nuttall a buy-to-let landlord?RobD said:
Oh, so the address was of a property he owned but didn't live in? That's less bad (from an eligibility standpoint)LordWakefield said:twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/826832318253895680
0 -
So we lost our last 8 wickets for 8 runs.
Great shower of shite.0 -
So Nuttall does live there
...and the Labour candidate is calling the voters racists
0 -
OUT OUT OUT
OUT OUT OUT
OUT0 -
It’s all over now. Shambles. All credit to Chahal, though!FrancisUrquhart said:
You are far too polite.TheScreamingEagles said:England have lost 7 wickets for 8 runs.
Fecking shambles.0 -
Q is for questioning, you homophobe.FrancisUrquhart said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.
0 -
Oh, it says "To Let" on the sign. Wonder if he is just renting?williamglenn said:
Is Nuttall a buy-to-let landlord?RobD said:
Oh, so the address was of a property he owned but didn't live in? That's less bad (from an eligibility standpoint)LordWakefield said:twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/826832318253895680
0 -
Another Crick non story?0
-
I believe it can be either (checks wikipedia...say so...must be right :-) )....And of course now we should be referring to this groups as LGBTIQ(+).williamglenn said:
Q is for questioning, you homophobe.FrancisUrquhart said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.0 -
Driving is useful as a way of keeping one's mind active.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.0 -
So - no necessarily twitter and not much use in healing smashed up faces, etc. Apart from that. Great.TheScreamingEagles said:
Helped in The Village.felix said:
How can twitter help if you're being beaten up outside a gay bar?PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
With everyone* now owning a smart phone, people took pictures of an assault, the picture of the perpetrator was shared and helped track him down.
*Well not everyone.0 -
Nope, because is it really his current home?Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
0 -
No, no, no. You need to apply some (need I say it) intelligence to this. Please read those links and work out why you're being a bit silly.SeanT said:
You're hopeless. The Turing test had been passed, in all kinds of waysJosiasJessop said:
They haven't 'mastered' it, although they've improve more than I thought they would. And besides, that's a very different problem domain with radically different consequences of failure.SeanT said:
IIRC, you're the guy that used to argue with me, on here, that I was deluded in thinking that computers would ever master translation. Oops.JosiasJessop said:
" it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance,"SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
No, it isn't clear. In the same way the Turing Test is nowhere near being passed.
But if we're in that sort of mood, you're the guy, a few weeks ago, who said that the Turing test was nearly passed ...
https://sciencealert.com/these-artificial-cells-are-not-alive-but-they-just-passed-the-turing-test
http://robohub.org/mits-ai-passes-turing-test-for-sound/
I'll try and make it easier for you, by posing the question in simpler terms.
Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
What would you say to her? Well, of course. As a good and decent Father you'd firmly steer her away from that option, Likewise, her Plan B - "becoming a truck driver'.
And on this clairvoyant note, night night from sultry Bangkok
As for your question: I'd say go for it. Learn a language. If you love it, do it; besides, most people I know who did a degree in one topic ended up working in another area. Concentrate on learning the language, but learn widely.
If your daughter wanted to be a painter, would you discourage her?0 -
If so, it's because "normal people" - who they? - don't understand it. But I'm a normal person and I understand it; you sound like a fairly normal person also. Do you understand it?isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
We'e part of the PB elite, don't you know?TOPPING said:
If so, it's because "normal people" - who they? - don't understand it. But I'm a normal person and I understand it; you sound like a fairly normal person also. Do you understand it?isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
If you rented somewhere out just to pretend to be a 'local' candidate, that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, because is it really his main home?Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
0 -
@JGForsyth: From a 119-2 to 127 all out in three overs and one ball, that’s a collapse even by English cricketing standards0
-
Sorry I am using "normal" in this context as "not politically obsessed enough to post on here"TOPPING said:
If so, it's because "normal people" - who they? - don't understand it. But I'm a normal person and I understand it; you sound like a fairly normal person also. Do you understand it?isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).0 -
It's clear as mud.OldKingCole said:
Sorry, come late to this, although admittedly I made a comment upthread. Do I gather that Doc Niuttall has given a false address?Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
From what I can tell, if he has a tenancy agreement for the address he put on his form, he's fine.
In fact if there isn't a story there then Crick is in the sin bin for posting a photo of a politicians house on twitter.
0 -
Quite so. Knowing a foreign language gives you an insight into the mind, culture, thinking of another country which even the best computer translation simply cannot give you.williamglenn said:
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
It's a bit like saying that just because some bot will be able to speak everything to you through your phone, there is no need to learn to read.
It may be technically true but in what sense is it advanced for adults to end up - or even want to end up - with the skills of a two year old?
0 -
https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/826834155392602112
How soon could the big showdown between Trump and the UN come?0 -
As it is getting harder to squeeze improvements in processors (a recent fab had a 10% yield, meaning that 90% of everything it made was unsaleable), these are the techs that will be truly transformative:
*) A way of parallelising all tasks.
*) Widespread, consumer-grade quantum communications.
*) Ditto quantum computing
*) Widespread, home-based multi-material 3D printing.
*) 'Real' AI.
Some of these may be a very long way away.0 -
Mr. F, I do wonder how the asexual would get along in that group. Seems a bit like putting atheists in with the Amish.0
-
The heavily US funded UN?williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/skynewsbreak/status/826834155392602112
How soon could the big showdown between Trump and the UN come?0 -
0
-
Cheap, and sustainable, no buses or taxis - how about trains? Personal conveyances a necessity. Each child has one to get to school?SeanT said:
Yes, the car is in charge. You just have to slur your address. It will be great for pubs - no more worries about drink driving. But terrible news for cabbies and Uber drivers, as you say.welshowl said:
The interesting thing is are you in charge of it, or is it in charge of it? Difference being if it's in charge of it you could presumably be as drunk as a skunk on the way back from the pub and all would be well. Bad day for taxis is that.SeanT said:ON-topic I just watched a Fox News report on self drive cars. Google have got a new version. The Fox News lady inside said it scared her - but no one died.
Google told Fox they expect these cars to be widely on sale within 6 years, or less.
Cost? The basic model is $2000
Yes, two thousand dollars. For a car that will safely and automatically drive you around urban streets. Electric and sustainable. $2000.
This is a revolution and it will be here within 6 years. It's gonna destroy tens of thousands of jobs, from the off, it will eventually destroy millions of jobs.
I've no doubt we will find alternative ways to give people work, but, Wow.
I reckon a personal car driver will eventually become a status symbol for the very rich, like a butler. Otherwise cars and buses as we know them will go extinct, as the horse and carriage did, before.
All the extra vehicles will need to be parked somewhere. Parking is difficult enough now, without every single person having their own individual vehicle.
Good evening, everyone.0 -
hahaha fair enough. That brings in 99.9999% of the nation.isam said:
Sorry I am using "normal" in this context as "not politically obsessed enough to post on here"TOPPING said:
If so, it's because "normal people" - who they? - don't understand it. But I'm a normal person and I understand it; you sound like a fairly normal person also. Do you understand it?isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
Crick's worried. The wretched Snell can't be going over at the doorstep.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
0 -
If people are still driving but in driverless - and apparently much cheaper - cars, how will traffic problems have been solved?SeanT said:
These things will be revolutionary, in a good way, for massive "third world" cities like Bangkok - or Jakarta, or Lagos, or Mexico City (or Beijing or Shanghai for that matter).OldKingCole said:
I’m still mind-boggl;ing over a mix of driverless cars and motor-si taxis in Bangkok.SeanT said:
I agree. I like driving, I like owning a car, I like speeding down an empty road, the sense of freedom and autonomy.Cyclefree said:
No doubt. But there are downsides even to technologies of the future.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.
Look at email: all those things set down which should have been said not recorded electronically. There are bankers in prison ruing the day they ever used email or chat or text etc.
Personally, I like driving. I enjoy being in control in my own space with my own music. I like having a beautiful looking car. I hate being a passenger.
Similarly, I liked keeping letters from people I loved. And no doubt there were people who loved a horse and carriage, and the culture that went with it. Some authors still prefer typewriters to laptops, others prefer longhand.
But in each case there is a vastly superior beneficial tech which will just overwhelm.
Think of the benefits of electric, driverless cars in London. No fumes, no pollution, no drives, no garages,no worries about parking, no need for petrol stations, no need for tyre shops - they will all go the way of horse manure, and pure finders, and livery, and coaching inns.
In one go you solve half your pollution problems, and most of your traffic problems. Miraculous.
There will probably be advances in pollution control. That is a good thing. But a bit of healthy scepticism is in order. Remember when diesel cars were seen as the answer to our pollution issues?
0 -
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
0 -
what, by getting rid of half the urban population in those places via horrific road traffic accidents?SeanT said:
These things will be revolutionary, in a good way, for massive "third world" cities like Bangkok - or Jakarta, or Lagos, or Mexico City (or Beijing or Shanghai for that matter).OldKingCole said:
I’m still mind-boggl;ing over a mix of driverless cars and motor-si taxis in Bangkok.SeanT said:
I agree. I like driving, I like owning a car, I like speeding down an empty road, the sense of freedom and autonomy.Cyclefree said:
No doubt. But there are downsides even to technologies of the future.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.
Look at email: all those things set down which should have been said not recorded electronically. There are bankers in prison ruing the day they ever used email or chat or text etc.
Personally, I like driving. I enjoy being in control in my own space with my own music. I like having a beautiful looking car. I hate being a passenger.
Similarly, I liked keeping letters from people I loved. And no doubt there were people who loved a horse and carriage, and the culture that went with it. Some authors still prefer typewriters to laptops, others prefer longhand.
But in each case there is a vastly superior beneficial tech which will just overwhelm.
Think of the benefits of electric, driverless cars in London. No fumes, no pollution, no drives, no garages,no worries about parking, no need for petrol stations, no need for tyre shops - they will all go the way of horse manure, and pure finders, and livery, and coaching inns.
In one go you solve half your pollution problems, and most of your traffic problems. Miraculous.
0 -
Seems pretty clear that he *now* lives there, but that he didn't at the time of nomination. Which I think is a breach of the rules, though not necessarily a determinative one.Pong said:
It's clear as mud.OldKingCole said:
Sorry, come late to this, although admittedly I made a comment upthread. Do I gather that Doc Niuttall has given a false address?Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
From what I can tell, if he has a tenancy agreement for the address he put on his form, he's fine.
In fact if there isn't a story there then Crick is in the sin bin for posting a photo of a politicians house on twitter.0 -
IIRC the form does say 'current home'SouthamObserver said:0 -
Some people will think it's a conspiracy. Most will understand that if the rule says you have to put down your home address on a form you have to put down your home address. They might ask why such rules should not apply to UKIP Parliamentary candidates.isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.
As for the Supreme Court decision, why would anyone think it stinks?
0 -
This is so spot on
Virginia Dare
We've got a right wing president who fights like a leftist. And boy, the activists LARPing as journalists don't like that. https://t.co/dQLpEvmxyX0 -
My experience suggests that that is so. And by ‘living’ it means permanently, not just for the purposes of the election.SouthamObserver said:
However, I’m sure that in the evnt of a Nuttal win m’learned friends will consider what the law actually means.0 -
Cyclefree said:
Quite so. Knowing a foreign language gives you an insight into the mind, culture, thinking of another country which even the best computer translation simply cannot give you.williamglenn said:
Knowledge of foreign languages is about far more than the ability to translate or even to communicate. It's a kind of weight training for the mind.SeanT said:Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
It's a bit like saying that just because some bot will be able to speak everything to you through your phone, there is no need to learn to read.
It may be technically true but in what sense is it advanced for adults to end up - or even want to end up - with the skills of a two year old?
Ah yes.
The USA and GB . Two nations separated by a common language.
0 -
This is the kind of 'mistake' I'd expect from Winston Mckenzie0
-
The "their" in my post rather than "the" or "my" was the giveaway that I was referring to UKIP not me. I was commenting on what I think would happen if UKIP won the seat and were disqualifiedSouthamObserver said:
Some people will think it's a conspiracy. Most will understand that if the rule says you have to put down your home address on a form you have to put down your home address. They might ask why such rules should not apply to UKIP Parliamentary candidates.isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.
As for the Supreme Court decision, why would anyone think it stinks?0 -
Haven' they automated thriller writing yet?JosiasJessop said:
No, no, no. You need to apply some (need I say it) intelligence to this. Please read those links and work out why you're being a bit silly.SeanT said:
You're hopeless. The Turing test had been passed, in all kinds of waysJosiasJessop said:
They haven't 'mastered' it, although they've improve more than I thought they would. And besides, that's a very different problem domain with radically different consequences of failure.SeanT said:
IIRC, you're the guy that used to argue with me, on here, that I was deluded in thinking that computers would ever master translation. Oops.JosiasJessop said:
" it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance,"SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
No, it isn't clear. In the same way the Turing Test is nowhere near being passed.
But if we're in that sort of mood, you're the guy, a few weeks ago, who said that the Turing test was nearly passed ...
https://sciencealert.com/these-artificial-cells-are-not-alive-but-they-just-passed-the-turing-test
http://robohub.org/mits-ai-passes-turing-test-for-sound/
I'll try and make it easier for you, by posing the question in simpler terms.
Imagine you have an eight year old daughter, and she says "Daddy Daddy I want to learn languages, so that in ten years time I can have a job as a translator!"
What would you say to her? Well, of course. As a good and decent Father you'd firmly steer her away from that option, Likewise, her Plan B - "becoming a truck driver'.
And on this clairvoyant note, night night from sultry Bangkok
As for your question: I'd say go for it. Learn a language. If you love it, do it; besides, most people I know who did a degree in one topic ended up working in another area. Concentrate on learning the language, but learn widely.
If your daughter wanted to be a painter, would you discourage her?0 -
Sums up Sky's presentersTheScreamingEagles said:
You've only just realised?Richard_Tyndall said:Kay Burley has to be one of the most ignorant and rudest news presenters I have ever seen on TV. She has no clue about her subject and so makes do by just talking over people.
0 -
Even if driverless cars do work, change might be much slower than some people think. In a some Western countries, horse ownership per head of population peaked in the Fifties and Sixties, long after cars had become common. But, owning a horse had been a status symbol for centuries, so people who were growing richer wanted to own horses.Cyclefree said:
If people are still driving but in driverless - and apparently much cheaper - cars, how will traffic problems have been solved?SeanT said:
These things will be revolutionary, in a good way, for massive "third world" cities like Bangkok - or Jakarta, or Lagos, or Mexico City (or Beijing or Shanghai for that matter).OldKingCole said:
I’m still mind-boggl;ing over a mix of driverless cars and motor-si taxis in Bangkok.SeanT said:
I agree. I like driving, I like owning a car, I like speeding down an empty road, the sense of freedom and autonomy.Cyclefree said:SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.
Personally, I like driving. I enjoy being in control in my own space with my own music. I like having a beautiful looking car. I hate being a passenger.
Similarly, I liked keeping letters from people I loved. And no doubt there were people who loved a horse and carriage, and the culture that went with it. Some authors still prefer typewriters to laptops, others prefer longhand.
.
In one go you solve half your pollution problems, and most of your traffic problems. Miraculous.
There will probably be advances in pollution control. That is a good thing. But a bit of healthy scepticism is in order. Remember when diesel cars were seen as the answer to our pollution issues?0 -
John Turner from the Association of Elect Administrators says "Whatever address you are living at time of nomination is what should appear on nomination paper."0
-
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?0 -
"B"?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?0 -
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
I'll probably regret asking this, but what are Furries?0 -
Rob , do you not mean effeteRobD said:
We'e part of the PB elite, don't you know?TOPPING said:
If so, it's because "normal people" - who they? - don't understand it. But I'm a normal person and I understand it; you sound like a fairly normal person also. Do you understand it?isam said:
No need to get smart with me about it, I am just saying how I think the public/normal people will view it.Pong said:
"the establishment is against them and the will of the people."isam said:
That would be the best result for UKIP I think, better than winning and not being taken to court. It would fuel their claim that the establishment is against them and the will of the people.david_herdson said:
If the details are as claimed then he is certainly ineligible. That doesn't mean he won't be on the ballot though, just that the matter would have to be taken to an election court afterwards.Pong said:
Clear Lab win. Although the tories might have a chance....williamglenn said:
If UKIP are out, does it mean a clear win for Labour, or possibly a big upset?TheScreamingEagles said:Michael Crick might have saved me nearly a grand.
The Lib Dems should do some bar charts of the top 2 from the 2010 result.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/e47.stm
I'm not convinced Nuttall is ineligible though.
It's pretty simple.
When you stand for election to parliament, you have to provide your address.
Not someone elses address. Not a fictional address.
Your address.
The one where you live.
It's not a conspiracy.
People on here think the Supreme Court decision was a great thing, normal people think it stinks.0 -
"B"?TOPPING said:
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Bisexual?
Poor old Cisgender's left out in the cold... again 0 -
People that likes to dress up like animalsSean_F said:
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
I'll probably regret asking this, but what are Furries?0 -
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
@SeanT is right. The simple truth is that human beings are lousy drivers – they get distracted, drive drunk, kiss their girlfriend or fiddle with the stereo when they are supposed to be concentrating on the road, and drive when tired – hence the billions spent by governments on road safety worldwide (there are about 1.25 million road deaths worldwide annually) and ever harder driving tests. It is quite possible that those who are under seven years of age now will never learn to drive because by the time they come of age, there will be no need. It is even possible that human drivers will be banned within their lifetimes. I like driving but it will become a niche body activity fairly soon.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.0 -
Gareth Snell's Ratners moment... it was always going to happen, Glad I didn't go all in on Labour
Still 50/50 in my book0 -
Report on driverless cars in Britain in the Bangkok Post:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/advanced/1109476/driverless-cars-hit-british-streets-in-landmark-trial0 -
@SeanT is right. The simple truth is that human beings are lousy drivers – they get distracted, drive drunk, kiss their girlfriend or fiddle with the stereo when they are supposed to be concentrating on the road, and drive when tired – hence the billions spent by governments on road safety worldwide (there are about 1.25 million road deaths worldwide annually) and ever harder driving tests. It is quite possible that those who are under seven years of age now will never learn to drive because by the time they come of age, there will be no need. It is even possible that human drivers will be banned within their lifetimes. I like driving but it will become a niche hobby activity fairly soon.Jobabob said:
@SeanT is right. The simple truth is that human beings are lousy drivers – they get distracted, drive drunk, kiss their girlfriend or fiddle with the stereo when they are supposed to be concentrating on the road, and drive when tired – hence the billions spent by governments on road safety worldwide (there are about 1.25 million road deaths worldwide annually) and ever harder driving tests. It is quite possible that those who are under seven years of age now will never learn to drive because by the time they come of age, there will be no need. It is even possible that human drivers will be banned within their lifetimes. I like driving but it will become a niche body activity fairly soon.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.0 -
Bisexual?isam said:
"B"?TOPPING said:
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Poor old Cisgender's left out in the cold... again
I suppose "I" could also stand for Incestuous.0 -
That really is childish behaviour from the other MEP.foxinsoxuk said:
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
Why's he still shouting? He's won, hasn't he??RobD said:
That really is childish behaviour from the other MEP.foxinsoxuk said:
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
It's not fair on the minority of very good drivers. My dad has been driving since 1961 and he's never been involved in an accident.Jobabob said:
@SeanT is right. The simple truth is that human beings are lousy drivers – they get distracted, drive drunk, kiss their girlfriend or fiddle with the stereo when they are supposed to be concentrating on the road, and drive when tired – hence the billions spent by governments on road safety worldwide (there are about 1.25 million road deaths worldwide annually) and ever harder driving tests. It is quite possible that those who are under seven years of age now will never learn to drive because by the time they come of age, there will be no need. It is even possible that human drivers will be banned within their lifetimes. I like driving but it will become a niche body activity fairly soon.SeanT said:
No, they're not. Driverless cars are clearly the future, the way email was clearly the future in the early 1990s.TheScreamingEagles said:
The thing is, driverless cars are one security hack away from joining the Microsoft Zune.SeanT said:Whatever the cost, it is quite clear self drive cars are now within touching distance, and they will annihilate vast sectors of employment.
Quite scary. Also exciting (if you're not a cabbie, Uber dude, truck driver, etc)
A technology so transformative, quicker, superior and less wasteful than its predecessor it will become universal very quickly.0 -
King Filip of Belgium launches attack on UK and US.
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2879830
"2016 is a year that we will remember as the year in which two great friends decided to focus their policies chiefly upon themselves.... They seem to wish to turn the course of history - and this conflicts with their own traditions of openness and generosity, of joining our common dream and commitment."0 -
According to the article, they weren't debating Brexit.TOPPING said:
Why's he still shouting? He's won, hasn't he??RobD said:
That really is childish behaviour from the other MEP.foxinsoxuk said:
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
I suppose "I" could also stand for Incestuous.Sean_F said:
Bisexual?isam said:
"B"?TOPPING said:
Seems kind of exclusive. What about Furries?Animal_pb said:
It's QUILTBAG (Questioning, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Asexual, Gay).Sean_F said:
Jezzas will be in the doghouse there, it ain't LGBT anymore, it is at least LGBTQ these days...don't be forgetting the Queers.FrancisUrquhart said:PlatoSaid said:Should he be leading his Party instead? The comments say everything
Jeremy Corbyn MP
We need Twitter to silence LGBT hate. I've just signed up to tomorrow's thunderclap to say #no2LGBTHate https://t.co/zwayMPuvwg
Poor old Cisgender's left out in the cold... again
Would be fun to find that Jeremy had signed up to support that....0 -
Begs the question; what does living mean.. I’ve got to say that I had a lot of sympathy with the view of the RO who challenged me; where does the candidate ordinarily with his/her(etc) family (if any).TheScreamingEagles said:John Turner from the Association of Elect Administrators says "Whatever address you are living at time of nomination is what should appear on nomination paper."
Perhaps address from which they ordinarily pay Council Tax and/or appear on the Electoral Register!0 -
So what? What's he doing in the European Parliament at all?RobD said:
According to the article, they weren't debating Brexit.TOPPING said:
Why's he still shouting? He's won, hasn't he??RobD said:
That really is childish behaviour from the other MEP.foxinsoxuk said:
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
As we keep getting told, we are still members of the EU, and with that comes rights and responsibilities.TOPPING said:
So what? What's he doing in the European Parliament at all?RobD said:
According to the article, they weren't debating Brexit.TOPPING said:
Why's he still shouting? He's won, hasn't he??RobD said:
That really is childish behaviour from the other MEP.foxinsoxuk said:
Stoke has gone potty over the byelection!David_Evershed said:
Crick is stoking the flames.Mortimer said:Another Crick non story?
All the publicity over Nuttall will highlight his carpetbagging.
In other UKIP news:
https://twitter.com/TotalPolitics/status/8268321767003873280 -
The King of the Belgians speaks.williamglenn said:King Filip of Belgium launches attack on UK and US.
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2879830
"2016 is a year that we will remember as the year in which two great friends decided to focus their policies chiefly upon themselves.... They seem to wish to turn the course of history - and this conflicts with their own traditions of openness and generosity, of joining our common dream and commitment."
The world pauses - wonders if that noise it heard was a mouse farting - and goes about its business...0
This discussion has been closed.