politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In spite of Trump’s impeachment problems punters give the Repu
Comments
-
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
n technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.1 -
Likewise with Harrow East:nunu2 said:I was wondering why Brent North saw such a large swing to the Tories for a London seat. It is to do with the large Hindu electorate moving away from Labour.
http://www.britainelects.com/2020/01/23/previews-23-jan-2020/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrow_East_(UK_Parliament_constituency)0 -
..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
I don't have a problem with managing remote teams remotely. I wouldn't remove travel entirely but you can certainly limit it a lot.
0 -
Because he polls always close to 0% with them.AlastairMeeks said:What is this evidence that Pete Buttigieg is hated by minorities? He’s not their first choice but that seems to be largely because they don’t know him.
And the reason is that he is perceived to be a Mayor with a heavy hand towards minorities.
It's his record that is sinking him.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/buttigieg-black-outreach-2020-074867
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/pete-buttigieg-black-lives-matter
https://prospect.org/civil-rights/african-americans-already-know-pete-buttigieg-very-well/
0 -
I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.FF43 said:..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
I don't have a problem with managing remote teams remotely. I wouldn't remove travel entirely but you can certainly limit it a lot.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.0 -
Yes - you can limit it but unless you are really organised and keep fully on top of things you will find yourself making very rapid visits to fight fires which should never have started.FF43 said:..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
I don't have a problem with managing remote teams remotely. I wouldn't remove travel entirely but you can certainly limit it a lot.0 -
Alright Adolf.kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
n technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.0 -
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.1 -
Volunteers?kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
n technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.0 -
Spot on!Richard_Nabavi said:
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.0 -
+1 it's one thing to have a day off, another entirely to willingly lose your evening.Richard_Nabavi said:
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.
I do occasionally attend evening technical events but they are free, learning focused with networking as very much a sideline.0 -
Climate change can't be that much of a problem if a bunch of bigwigs 'networking' is more important.FF43 said:..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
P. S I'm not saying teleconferencencing can stop all travel, or should, but clearly for many conference events the justification is now tenuous.2 -
A lot of it is about setting expectations. This is how we do things around here. If you do that, people will adapt to that way of working. But I agree, there are situations where it is just more effective to meet in one location. Often it's where people haven't bought in.eek said:
Yes - you can limit it but unless you are really organised and keep fully on top of things you will find yourself making very rapid visits to fight fires which should never have started.FF43 said:..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
I don't have a problem with managing remote teams remotely. I wouldn't remove travel entirely but you can certainly limit it a lot.1 -
Remote working requires everyone within an organisation to be on board with it culturally, basic things like timekeeping become quite important for conference calls and virtual meetings, so as not to keep people waiting.FF43 said:..
Personally, I can't deal with networking. I like an agenda and goals. But accepting there's a place for it, Davos is the supreme networking event, and you really do need to turn up. I guess it's 90% self-congratulation and 10% useful connections, but that 10% is difficult to get another way.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
I don't have a problem with managing remote teams remotely. I wouldn't remove travel entirely but you can certainly limit it a lot.
My current project is with a startup, and as a major deadline approaches we are travelling more to make sure we keep on top of things - and yes, a great deal of useful conversation also happens in the pub, both one-on-ones and group management meetings.
Once we release the product and move to the improvement phase from development, we’ll be able to travel a lot less as things settle down into a routine - whereas today’s environment is very ad-hoc and dare I say a little chaotic at times.0 -
I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.
2 -
I wasn't suggesting putting them down, although the Golgafrinchan Ark B solution is appealing for its additional reasons, but we need to get our population growth under control and hopefully reversed. The conflict with economic growth is the problem though.brokenwheel said:
Alright Adolf.kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
suitable for everything.Sandpit said:
ences.brokenwheel said:
n technology.Gallowgate said:
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.
Let's face it even if we solve the climate change problem we still can't keep multiplying like we are and it would be more sustainable planet if there were a lot less of us, but we just can't help ourselves.0 -
What expenses do you incur that you claim back when you go to the pub after work? I want to work there.Richard_Nabavi said:
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.0 -
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.0 -
See other answer. What expenses?Anabobazina said:
Spot on!Richard_Nabavi said:
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.0 -
The ones that aren't yet born. Of course that is also somewhat of a challenge.DavidL said:
Volunteers?kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
n technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.
But the knocking out of huge families is either selfish in the 1st world or due to poverty in the 3rd world.0 -
Lots of truth in this, sadly. Loads of people would take the whole climate thing very seriously if it was patently and transparently obvious that elites and leaders were personally bearing the sacrifice and cost of the change they say is necessary. Until then.....contrarian said:
I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:
There are times when the only way to get things sorted is to be there in person.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
Online communication works at times but it takes a lot of skill and effort to ensure everyone is up to date and it's not suitable for everything.
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out by appearing remotely and going on about how much carbon their talking shop was generating.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.
0 -
When I was working I used to vastly prefer written and telephone to flesh & blood when it came to comms. The reason being that I find people's faces and body language very distracting. I am far more able to concentrate on what other people are saying to me if I can't see them. This has become increasingly the case as I've got older.
Re Trump and the question as to whether it is right that he is being impeached - I am trying a thought experiment. Imagine we discover that Boris Johnson has been attempting to blackmail Mark Rutte to dig up dirt on Lisa Nandy. How do we feel about this and what is the upshot? Does it bring Johnson down? Or do we shrug it off and say it's just Boris being Boris? I know what I'd feel - he ought to resign immediately and possibly face charges - but I'm genuinely unsure whether this would be the majority view.0 -
So best director and cinematography rather than best picture?NorthernPowerhouse said:
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.0 -
Thankfully, third world poverty and infant mortality are reducing at drastic rates. What we need now is to educate people that having two children per woman is enough.kjh said:
The ones that aren't yet born. Of course that is also somewhat of a challenge.DavidL said:
Volunteers?kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:
Absolutely, in fact I’m working on a project right now that involves a fair amount of travel. Managing remote teams is difficult.eek said:Sandpit said:
But this was a climate change conference, where everyone was standing up and saying we should fly less - when they’ve all arrived either on private planes or first class commercial.
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.
But the knocking out of huge families is either selfish in the 1st world or due to poverty in the 3rd world.1 -
You lot are really harsh:eek said:
+1 it's one thing to have a day off, another entirely to willingly lose your evening.Richard_Nabavi said:
That might be because it's hard to get sign-off for the expenses if you have to admit you're only going for the booze-up.kjh said:I used to organise conferences for the companies I represented. By far the biggest benefit of these conferences was the networking (according to them). As about 1/3 of them were based in London I thought why not hire a room above a pub one night for them to meet up. No agenda.
It was a flop. It appears networking is the biggest benefit, but there has to be another reason for attending. An actual agenda.
I do occasionally attend evening technical events but they are free, learning focused with networking as very much a sideline.
a) It was free. I paid for the room.
b) There were no expenses. At best a tube fare and your beer and I wouldn't expect anyone to claim that back.
c) People do go to the pub after work and chat so it seemed like a reasonable idea.
d) It appeared though people preferred an agenda and structured meeting beforehand and then were happy to network over a beer (even though that would have taken 1/2 a day out of their working day in that scenario). At the time I would normally get 80 - 100 to a meeting. For this I got about 20. Obviously I was expecting less as without the structured longer session I wasn't going to get those travelling longer distances, but I was hoping for say 40 - 50 and the feedback was they wanted an agenda and presentations (which is what they were used to).0 -
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."1 -
Most certainly. Someone compared it unfavourably to saving private ryan, but it just wasnt that kind of blockbuster movie with a two dimensional hero. It was a good story well told with some really stunning techniques.DecrepiterJohnL said:
So best director and cinematography rather than best picture?NorthernPowerhouse said:
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.0 -
I agree. I find it depressing that in several 1st world countries when there is a shortage of young and with a growing ageing population the simple solution is to encourage births. We have to think differently.Sandpit said:
Thankfully, third world poverty and infant mortality are reducing at drastic rates. What we need now is to educate people that having two children per woman is enough.kjh said:
The ones that aren't yet born. Of course that is also somewhat of a challenge.DavidL said:
Volunteers?kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:eek said:Sandpit said:
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.
But the knocking out of huge families is either selfish in the 1st world or due to poverty in the 3rd world.0 -
Ending the ponzi scheme that is national insurance perhaps?kjh said:
I agree. I find it depressing that in several 1st world countries when there is a shortage of young and with a growing ageing population the simple solution is to encourage births. We have to think differently.Sandpit said:
Thankfully, third world poverty and infant mortality are reducing at drastic rates. What we need now is to educate people that having two children per woman is enough.kjh said:
The ones that aren't yet born. Of course that is also somewhat of a challenge.DavidL said:
Volunteers?kjh said:
Having several billion less people on the planet would be useful.MarqueeMark said:
Science is the only possible way out.Philip_Thompson said:
Its like religion. It isn't about what works or doesn't work, but about preaching to others regardless of what you do yourself.Sandpit said:eek said:Sandpit said:
Given how many other attendees were trying to latch on to Greta and her ‘movement’, perhaps the best thing she could have done was to have called them all out.
I still don’t understand why someone hasn’t organised one of these international conferences in association with a company like Cisco, as a demonstration of what high-end conference systems are now capable of doing. But those involved don’t want to do that, they enjoy the ‘networking’ aspects of these events far too much.
The British government has the best environment record of any government this country has ever had and one of the best in the entire world but you wouldn't know it listening to so-called "Greens".
Self denying ordinances or curtailing holidays (or even conferences) won't affect climate change. To stop climate change we don't need to stop flying, we need to develop clean alternatives. The solution to climate change is to find a way to switch our planes from fossil fuels to renewable energy, probably via hybrids, just as we're doing in vehicles.
And given vehicle emissions vast, vastly outstrip aerospace emissions we should in the short term be thinking about how to get everyone into electric vehicles on the roads while scientists and engineers are tasked with developing clean planes of the future.
But the knocking out of huge families is either selfish in the 1st world or due to poverty in the 3rd world.0 -
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.1 -
Roger Deakins (Dartmouth resident - well, Kingswear actually) must be nailed on for cinematography.DecrepiterJohnL said:
So best director and cinematography rather than best picture?NorthernPowerhouse said:
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.0 -
Damn, I am going to have to watch it again aren't I?NorthernPowerhouse said:
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.1 -
From my view, Trump should never have been President in the first place, but given he was elected despite the clear signs of being unfit for office and given there is a mechanism to remove him through election that won't be any slower than impeachment, I suspect impeachment will be a substitute of process for substantive questions about his presidency.kinabalu said:When I was working I used to vastly prefer written and telephone to flesh & blood when it came to comms. The reason being that I find people's faces and body language very distracting. I am far more able to concentrate on what other people are saying to me if I can't see them. This has become increasingly the case as I've got older.
Re Trump and the question as to whether it is right that he is being impeached - I am trying a thought experiment. Imagine we discover that Boris Johnson has been attempting to blackmail Mark Rutte to dig up dirt on Lisa Nandy. How do we feel about this and what is the upshot? Does it bring Johnson down? Or do we shrug it off and say it's just Boris being Boris? I know what I'd feel - he ought to resign immediately and possibly face charges - but I'm genuinely unsure whether this would be the majority view.
The first part also applies to Johnson, but we have five long years ahead of us.0 -
On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
0 -
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
Oh for goodness sake you are talking about me and I said absolutely no such things.contrarian said:
On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
Stop talking absolute twaddle.0 -
I think it's technically correct to impeach him but in a sense I'm glad that he is bound to be acquitted. Because it's far far better that he be removed the way he came in - at the ballot box. If it were any other way the grievance and conspiracy theories unleashed would be something to behold.FF43 said:From my view, Trump should never have been President in the first place, but given he was elected despite the clear signs of being unfit for office and given there is a mechanism to remove him through election that won't be any slower than impeachment, I suspect impeachment will be a substitute of process for substantive questions about his presidency.
The first part also applies to Johnson, but we have five long years ahead of us.0 -
So you expect the Congress to ignore it when a president is committing crimes ?FF43 said:
From my view, Trump should never have been President in the first place, but given he was elected despite the clear signs of being unfit for office and given there is a mechanism to remove him through election that won't be any slower than impeachment, I suspect impeachment will be a substitute of process for substantive questions about his presidency....kinabalu said:When I was working I used to vastly prefer written and telephone to flesh & blood when it came to comms. The reason being that I find people's faces and body language very distracting. I am far more able to concentrate on what other people are saying to me if I can't see them. This has become increasingly the case as I've got older.
Re Trump and the question as to whether it is right that he is being impeached - I am trying a thought experiment. Imagine we discover that Boris Johnson has been attempting to blackmail Mark Rutte to dig up dirt on Lisa Nandy. How do we feel about this and what is the upshot? Does it bring Johnson down? Or do we shrug it off and say it's just Boris being Boris? I know what I'd feel - he ought to resign immediately and possibly face charges - but I'm genuinely unsure whether this would be the majority view.
Part of their constitutionally mandated raison d'être is oversight of the executive, and the power of impeachment is written into the constitution for a reason.
Sure, the Republican Senate might vote to acquit him, but not to bring impeachment charges would be to give tacit acceptance to his behaviour.
0 -
But you were opining that the true motive of climate activists is not to stop global warming but to slake a thirst for centralized power and a Stalinist repression of individual liberty.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
That, to me, is very frothy indeed.0 -
Betting Flash -
Biden and Sanders are now the same price for both the nomination AND the presidency.
So the market has taken a look at all this "Biden has a much better chance than Sanders of beating Trump" talk and given it the finger.0 -
But it ain't the much more distinguished dark navy blue of the old passports that all the "back-to-the-50s" types are claiming we were going to get back. I bet it's not a hard cover either, nor has it got cut-outs in the cover displaying the holder's name and the passport number. Let's hope that all these other supposed benefits of Brexit don't turn out to be an equally [ale imitation. Not holding my breath, though.Gallowgate said:That blue is rather fetching to be fair.
0 -
Or, alternatively, we can have a look at some polling:speedy2 said:
Because he polls always close to 0% with them.AlastairMeeks said:What is this evidence that Pete Buttigieg is hated by minorities? He’s not their first choice but that seems to be largely because they don’t know him.
And the reason is that he is perceived to be a Mayor with a heavy hand towards minorities.
It's his record that is sinking him.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/03/buttigieg-black-outreach-2020-074867
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/pete-buttigieg-black-lives-matter
https://prospect.org/civil-rights/african-americans-already-know-pete-buttigieg-very-well/
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/alq58zq5zt/econTabReport.pdf
The slide on p68 - among black voters, "Favorable" 35%, "Unfavorable" 23%, "Don't know" 41%.0 -
Yeskjh said:
Damn, I am going to have to watch it again aren't I?NorthernPowerhouse said:
I loved the 1917 movie. I didnt know about the single shot before watching it, but had coincidentally watched Children of Men a couple of weeks ago which has some utterly amazing single shot segments. Breathtaking logistics required to do it.Nigelb said:
More than the Academy shortlisters...FrancisUrquhart said:
I agree. The cinematography is fantastic, with the continuous shot in a way that makes you feel you are really walking in the footsteps of the characters. However, IMO the story is fine, but nothing more.eek said:
The hype is the technique used - so it looks like a single continuous shot.kjh said:Saw 2017 last night. Not sure what all the hype is about. It is a much poorer version of Saving Private Ryan.
But then I didn't really think the Joker was that amazing, so what do I know.
About half an hour in i realised that there had been no cut in 1917. Of course this was an illusion and it's peppered with some clever wipes as the film is constantly travelling forward. A major undertaking and breathtaking to watch, after i noticed it.
1 -
0
-
Bonkers.kinabalu said:Betting Flash -
Biden and Sanders are now the same price for both the nomination AND the presidency.
So the market has taken a look at all this "Biden has a much better chance than Sanders of beating Trump" talk and given it the finger.
0 -
Agree. I can't think of a single climate activist who is doing it with the intention to grab power. Not even the most deluded. Of course sometimes those with a cause end up going to extreme methods, but it is odd to assume that is their motive in the first place.kinabalu said:
But you were opining that the true motive of climate activists is not to stop global warming but to slake a thirst for centralized power and a Stalinist repression of individual liberty.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
That, to me, is very frothy indeed.
And you have only got to see the post referring to my posts on population to see the same warped interpretation which claims all sorts of stuff in my name that I never said nor endorse.
Surprising what people can read that isn't there.0 -
Commenting from the US … I see a lot of noise here around Buttigieg out of all proportion to reality. He's certainly a factor in the race, but there are three Democrat primary candidates who consistently poll much better. Whatever his virtues may be, he's a 30-something small town mayor with no previous national profile trying to jump to the biggest office in the country, if not the world.
And why is his support among minorities so low, way worse than his overall numbers? Lots of possible reasons, but anyway it is what it is. You're not going to win the Democratic nomination with 0-3% support from black and other minority voters.
A miracle could happen for him but realistically, this is a contest involving Biden, Warren and Sanders.1 -
1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+1 -
A useful piece by Nate Silver on the chances of a contested Dem convention:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-are-the-chances-of-a-brokered-convention/
1 -
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
I'm sure there's absolutely no correlation between Buttigieg-rampers and those who have a financial interest in the lowering of his odds...Sablon said:Commenting from the US … I see a lot of noise here around Buttigieg out of all proportion to reality.
0 -
It's a very good film.DavidL said:
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
Point me to this open discussion of drastic human population changes, please.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
And just how are these massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people to be enforced without scrutiny or consent ?
Unless you mean the normal operations of the market ?
0 -
Coca Cola's response was interesting. We're not going to bin plastic bottles because our customers don't want us to.Nigelb said:
Point me to this open discussion of drastic human population changes, please.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
And just how are these massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people to be enforced without scrutiny or consent ?
Unless you mean the normal operations of the market ?0 -
No mention of Laurence Fox there. So I'm going to assume he's not in it. Either unavailable or (more likely) wasn't considered because not thought good enough.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
I hope it is better than Joker. I was extremely disappointed by that.TOPPING said:
It's a very good film.DavidL said:
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
Emma Thompson was absent also.kinabalu said:
No mention of Laurence Fox there. So I'm going to assume he's not in it. Either unavailable or (more likely) wasn't considered because not thought good enough.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
Not seen Joker. Perhaps will now avoid. Maybe I'll go to see Jo Jo Rabbit.DavidL said:
I hope it is better than Joker. I was extremely disappointed by that.TOPPING said:
It's a very good film.DavidL said:
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+0 -
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
Anyone know a price for RLB to win in the first round of voting?0
-
It's a very good article.Richard_Nabavi said:A useful piece by Nate Silver on the chances of a contested Dem convention:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-are-the-chances-of-a-brokered-convention/
All those possibilities will narrow very rapidly post Iowa.0 -
The latter was good.TOPPING said:
Not seen Joker. Perhaps will now avoid. Maybe I'll go to see Jo Jo Rabbit.DavidL said:
I hope it is better than Joker. I was extremely disappointed by that.TOPPING said:
It's a very good film.DavidL said:
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+
Parasite was very good.
0 -
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
-
I think that there is a grain of truth here. As someone who once studied climate science (many years ago) I get a little upset that it has been hijacked by the extreme left and the media purveyors of hyperbole. There is a weight of evidence that indicates man-made climate change, that is backed by a clear consensus of the scientific community. If there is any dissent to this it is very muted and that is probably a bad thing from a scientific perspective. What is not clear is what can be done to reverse the trend, and whether any action will be genuinely effective. Pragmatists may be better off asking the question of what planning can be done to mitigate any reaction to a change of the earth's average temperature.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.1 -
I stopped doing this after I discovered Skype, and it's successor equivalents.TOPPING said:
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."
0 -
Not the same.Nigel_Foremain said:
I stopped doing this after I discovered Skype, and it's successor equivalents.TOPPING said:
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.HYUFD said:
Just in case.1 -
Agreed, but it means you do not waste the day sitting in an airport for a discussion that can often take place over Skype. If, however, it is a first meeting with a client that seeks to establish trust, this needs to be done face to faceTOPPING said:
Not the same.Nigel_Foremain said:
I stopped doing this after I discovered Skype, and it's successor equivalents.TOPPING said:
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."
0 -
Mitigation will be required because it is an evident truth that "we" are not going to change our behaviour to the extent that climate activists say is necessary.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think that there is a grain of truth here. As someone who once studied climate science (many years ago) I get a little upset that it has been hijacked by the extreme left and the media purveyors of hyperbole. There is a weight of evidence that indicates man-made climate change, that is backed by a clear consensus of the scientific community. If there is any dissent to this it is very muted and that is probably a bad thing from a scientific perspective. What is not clear is what can be done to reverse the trend, and whether any action will be genuinely effective. Pragmatists may be better off asking the question of what planning can be done to mitigate any reaction to a change of the earth's average temperature.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.0 -
It's not just environmentally costly; it's a waste of time and money. It takes the participants and organiser to collectively say, why should I have to do this? I have thought this about sales. Refusing to travel to the customer will never be an excuse for losing a sale. The customer has to drive this and say, we won't accept bids in person. You will submit your bid by email and we will hold a video conference to go through it. A good starting point for that kind of campaign is environmental campaigners putting this agenda into practice themselves. Which I think was Sir Norfolk's point.TOPPING said:
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
What you say is of course right but it also shows how easy it is to start laying down the law as to what is and what is not acceptable and to tell others how they should or shouldn't behave.Nigel_Foremain said:
Agreed, but it means you do not waste the day sitting in an airport for a discussion that can often take place over Skype. If, however, it is a first meeting with a client that seeks to establish trust, this needs to be done face to faceTOPPING said:
Not the same.Nigel_Foremain said:
I stopped doing this after I discovered Skype, and it's successor equivalents.TOPPING said:
I flew to Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could e’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
Thought I would add this to the mix.Nigelb said:
Point me to this open discussion of drastic human population changes, please.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
And just how are these massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people to be enforced without scrutiny or consent ?
Unless you mean the normal operations of the market ?
'rable rouses' have been saying 'what everybody is doing is wrong; and you must all change your ways, and do exactly what I tell you to do since the old testament days.
A peak came in the 1968 with the book 'population bomb' by Paul Ehrlick, non of the predictions came true, in fact just about the opposite happened. In 2020 pritiy much identical arguments are being razed by Extinction Rebellion and others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkXjj6dalM0 -
Interesting clip of the chat between Joe Rogan and NYT commentator Bari Weiss, discussing the candidates.
She reckons it will be Bernie for the Dem nomination, on the basis that his base are the most energised.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=F0PT_vQXtZM0 -
Assuming the effects are as bad as they believe. That is still uncertain, altho many believe probable. Climate science is one of the least exact sciences in existence, which is one of the reasons for the hyperbole. You can create models for many many different outcomes. The media and the likes of Greta Thunberg (and her parents no doubt) like to focus people's minds on the worst scenarios, because this creates better headlines and more research grants. They might turn out to be right, and we might be facing devastation and mass extinction. On the other hand Trump (much as I despise him) might be right. He is as well qualified as Greta, i.e. not very.TOPPING said:
Mitigation will be required because it is an evident truth that "we" are not going to change our behaviour to the extent that climate activists say is necessary.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think that there is a grain of truth here. As someone who once studied climate science (many years ago) I get a little upset that it has been hijacked by the extreme left and the media purveyors of hyperbole. There is a weight of evidence that indicates man-made climate change, that is backed by a clear consensus of the scientific community. If there is any dissent to this it is very muted and that is probably a bad thing from a scientific perspective. What is not clear is what can be done to reverse the trend, and whether any action will be genuinely effective. Pragmatists may be better off asking the question of what planning can be done to mitigate any reaction to a change of the earth's average temperature.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.2 -
I think punters have got this right. Having been heavily involved in British politics and now just a US based (Boston) political observer I hear an increasing number of people (liberals) who believe Trump will win. He won't be convicted by the senate, the economy will continue to grow and the Dems are going to select an oldie (Biden, Sanders), a Billionaire (Steyer, Bloomberg) or a child (Mayor Pete). I think Warren would have a chance but Trump already has his Pocahontas attack lines established. It's going to be a very nasty election1
-
Couldn't agree more.Nigel_Foremain said:
Assuming the effects are as bad as they believe. That is still uncertain, altho many believe probable. Climate science is one of the least exact sciences in existence, which is one of the reasons for the hyperbole. You can create models for many many different outcomes. The media and the likes of Greta Thunberg (and her parents no doubt) like to focus people's minds on the worst scenarios, because this creates better headlines and more research grants. They might turn out to be right, and we might be facing devastation and mass extinction. On the other hand Trump (much as I despise him) might be right. He is as well qualified as Greta, i.e. not very.TOPPING said:
Mitigation will be required because it is an evident truth that "we" are not going to change our behaviour to the extent that climate activists say is necessary.Nigel_Foremain said:
I think that there is a grain of truth here. As someone who once studied climate science (many years ago) I get a little upset that it has been hijacked by the extreme left and the media purveyors of hyperbole. There is a weight of evidence that indicates man-made climate change, that is backed by a clear consensus of the scientific community. If there is any dissent to this it is very muted and that is probably a bad thing from a scientific perspective. What is not clear is what can be done to reverse the trend, and whether any action will be genuinely effective. Pragmatists may be better off asking the question of what planning can be done to mitigate any reaction to a change of the earth's average temperature.kinabalu said:
On sober reflection would you agree that this is just a teeny bit overwrought?contrarian said:I find your naivety astonishing. Asking why the climate lobby fly first class is like asking why Stalin murdered millions of working class Russians.
Their cause is no more saving the environment than Stalin's was socialism.
In both cases its about the centralisation, control and rationing of power and resources. The cause is a flag of convenience.0 -
How many people would answer a question like that truthfully?HYUFD said:0 -
Corrected?TOPPING said:
I flew towithin Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
I thought the Bible forbid premarital sex and adultery.HYUFD said:
So long as you never get married, you're safe 0 -
sadly I have to go home before someone works it out for me!!lolNigel_Foremain said:
0 -
I had a friend in the 9%, his usual MO was to ask girls in a club half an hour before it closed if they’d like to go home with him. Even assuming that girls in that 3% were equally as likely to be in the club at the end of the night as others, he’d need to get an average of 33 slaps around the face before one said yes and they left together. He almost never went home on his own!Nigel_Foremain said:1 -
Good point.IanB2 said:
Corrected?TOPPING said:
I flew towithin Europe today for a one hour meeting. Even the Uber driver raised an eyebrow.isam said:
Flying around the world for business meetings could be the smoking on public transport, in buildings and planes of the 2040sFF43 said:
A rare comment that has changed my view. I think you are right. Leading by example is surely the way forward.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
The trouble is that publicity is about impact more than reach. An advert, say, can be widely seen and talked about without actually increasing sales.Quincel said:
Much as I agree with the video link point generally, given the amount of publicity the yacht generated I'm not sure I can agree with that part.Sandpit said:
I’m sure Greta could have generated way more publicity (and avoided a dozen people taking flights to support her boat), if she’d turned up at the NY conference via video link and had a real go at all the hypocrites who travel around the world going to these five-star all-expenses-paid climate change conferences.brokenwheel said:
I regularly teleconference with researchers across the planet. These conferences not only seem hypocritical and exclusive, they're a bit anachronistic given modern technology.Gallowgate said:
A genuine and feasible step people can take to reduce the impact their meetings have on the environment is to make more use of video conferencing technology. Whereas turning up by yacht to meetings is very rarely a real option.
So a video link is less headline-grabbing but potentially more impactful. Turning up by yacht gets people talking, but doesn't actually offer something you or I could realistically do.
I'm not sure what the right answer is - just saying that I do slightly worry about some environmentalist stunts is that they make people say, "you might have a point but I don't know what you want me to do, and the thing you seem to be suggesting looks totally unrealistic."0 -
The 91% and 97% respectively don't tend to go to clubs.Sandpit said:
I had a friend in the 9%, his usual MO was to ask girls in a club half an hour before it closed if they’d like to go home with him. Even assuming that girls in that 3% were equally as likely to be in the club at the end of the night as others, he’d need to get an average of 33 slaps around the face before one said yes and they left together. He almost never went home on his own!Nigel_Foremain said:1 -
I believe Islam and Sikhism forbids sex outside marriage too, as does Catholicism of course and most evangelical Churches, Hinduism is a bit more flexible if voluntary on the part of both parties and a strong desire and Buddhism also allows sex outside marriage if both parties are truly in love.rcs1000 said:
I thought the Bible forbid premarital sex and adultery.HYUFD said:
So long as you never get married, you're safe
Orthodox Judaism generally forbids it unless the male marries his partner afterwards.0 -
Probably if you look like Brad Pitt or George Clooney you might away with itNigel_Foremain said:0 -
Gay men and sex are quite different. They’ll have sex on the first date and if they really get on, after three or four meetings they might exchange names and phone numbers.2
-
The world got less poor and people didn't need as many children.BigRich said:
Thought I would add this to the mix.Nigelb said:
Point me to this open discussion of drastic human population changes, please.contrarian said:On this thread there are people openly discussing drastic human population reduction as a solution to our problems. presumably by incentive or....goodness, I don;t know what.
They are openly discussing measures that would mean massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people, again enforced or by dictat or incentive presumably, and again imposed without scrutiny or consent.
And just how are these massive changes to the lifestyles of ordinary people to be enforced without scrutiny or consent ?
Unless you mean the normal operations of the market ?
'rable rouses' have been saying 'what everybody is doing is wrong; and you must all change your ways, and do exactly what I tell you to do since the old testament days.
A peak came in the 1968 with the book 'population bomb' by Paul Ehrlick, non of the predictions came true, in fact just about the opposite happened. In 2020 pritiy much identical arguments are being razed by Extinction Rebellion and others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xkXjj6dalM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg
0 -
I had an Italian friend at university who did the same, you have to be very self confident and immune to rejection but you can then get it if you really want itSandpit said:
I had a friend in the 9%, his usual MO was to ask girls in a club half an hour before it closed if they’d like to go home with him. Even assuming that girls in that 3% were equally as likely to be in the club at the end of the night as others, he’d need to get an average of 33 slaps around the face before one said yes and they left together. He almost never went home on his own!Nigel_Foremain said:1 -
Joker was awful, Jo Jo rabbit (I've never seen) looks average at Best and is parasite in subtitles?Nigelb said:
The latter was good.TOPPING said:
Not seen Joker. Perhaps will now avoid. Maybe I'll go to see Jo Jo Rabbit.DavidL said:
I hope it is better than Joker. I was extremely disappointed by that.TOPPING said:
It's a very good film.DavidL said:
Being taken to see it this weekend with my son as a Christmas present. Looking forward to it.TOPPING said:1917
Good things: overall sweep of what was a good story; good tension; showing squaddies as young (they're usually portrayed as late-twenty somethings; showing officers as not donkeys leading lions; and yes that single shot camera which made you not want to leave the protagonist.
Bad things: comical appearance of Brit stars: where were Judy Dench and Jim Broadbent; comical X2 appearance of dastardly then not dastardly but nevertheless inevitable Benedict Cumberbatch; strange accent from George Mackay (for US consumption?); not brilliant music definitely not as good as Dunkirk.
B+
Parasite was very good.0 -
If he’s anything like my old university friend, he’s now working in sales and doing very well for himself. But yes, utter self-confidence and not caring about often literal slaps around the face, equals sex every week.HYUFD said:
I had an Italian friend at university who did the same, you have to be very self confident and immune to rejection but you can then get it if you really want itSandpit said:
I had a friend in the 9%, his usual MO was to ask girls in a club half an hour before it closed if they’d like to go home with him. Even assuming that girls in that 3% were equally as likely to be in the club at the end of the night as others, he’d need to get an average of 33 slaps around the face before one said yes and they left together. He almost never went home on his own!Nigel_Foremain said:1 -
I understand that in some sects within the Shia Islam they have a concept of a Temporary mirage to use as a loop hole.HYUFD said:
I believe Islam and Sikhism forbids sex outside marriage too, as does Catholicism of course and most evangelical Churches, Hinduism is a bit more flexible if voluntary on the part of both parties and a strong desire and Buddhism also allows sex outside marriage if both parties are truly in love.rcs1000 said:
I thought the Bible forbid premarital sex and adultery.HYUFD said:
So long as you never get married, you're safe
Orthodox Judaism generally forbids it unless the male marries his partner afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut'ah0 -
I think if you're the sort of person who makes a great impression due to looks and/or personality - no allusion either way regarding @TOPPING and his flight today I hasten to stress - then it's probably in most cases worth the effort to arrange or attend flesh & blood meetings. Of course this is not to consider the environmental impact.Nigel_Foremain said:Agreed, but it means you do not waste the day sitting in an airport for a discussion that can often take place over Skype. If, however, it is a first meeting with a client that seeks to establish trust, this needs to be done face to face
0
