I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Source? A lot of folk in the more northern climes and of more melanated skin yes, but less so down south and paler.
Sunshine doesn't seem to stop lots of people dying in Florida, Texas, Iran, India etc etc
There is lots of Zinc in nuts and seeds. Vegetarians are not zinc deficient. Indeed there is reasonable evidence that being vegetarian is significantly life extending, and healthy years too.
Minerals in nuts, seeds, pulses, vegetables and legumes are great, but harder for the body to absorb than those found in meats, eggs, and dairy.
I don't know what information you're using for the bald statement that vegetarians aren't zinc deficient, or what research you allude to on vegetarianism, but I strongly suspect there are other factors. Vegetarianism is usually a middle class habit, so would correlate strongly with people living a bit longer - that doesn't equal causation.
We have ample evidence from the past to look at, of cultures who have been vegetarian over generations, and none of them have a reputation for longevity.
We have ample evidence though that the saturated fats in meat and dairy are major contributors to heart disease and cancers.
The evidence that optimum healthy diet is predominantly plant based is pretty conclusive. I eat small amounts of meat, a fair bit of oily fish, and am rather fond of cheese, but lots and lots of fruit and veg.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
Once again (and I bore even myself).
AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
This forum is beyond ridicule at times.
Rottenborough was replying to a hypothetical scenario that I held up as a question to Contrarian. I don't think either Rottenborough nor myself were suggesting SCOTUS was likely to overturn the election.
Sure, although I wasn't directly responding to his comment, more the hopeless Trumptonite spam that we've had to endure on here since Biden was elected.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Can kicked for a few more days. Faisal Islam had an interesting point that the PM might accept a bilateral ratchet clause as his concession and sell it as “the Europeans will need to follow OUR high standards!”.
This is the weird thing.
UK standards are higher than with most countries we trade with.
A few years of ratcheting standards, one way or another, will just result in a few tariffs, one way or another.
But it would get the next few dangerous months out of the way and give the UK a chance to make some proper plans and continue to sort out trade deals with the rest of the world.
Yes, I’m starting to think that’s the landing zone. The problem is that, although I legitimately think Johnson ISN’T that type of Tory, there are enough ERG loons who would like us to deregulate to US levels who would cry foul. But... again Johnson selling an agreement as “Where Blighty goes Europe follows” would probably be as good a headline as you’re going to get.
Anyone thinking about it would realise there is no chance that the UK is going to slash employment and environmental regulations or cut corporation tax to zero.
No matter how much some people fantasise (without understanding the underlying facts) that a Singapore on the Severn can be created by doing so.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
I don't think @Richard_Nabavi is correct. UvdL will have parameters where she has latitude, and ones where she does not. If Boris Johnson asked for Macron's head on a plate, she wouldn't be able to do anything. But it's quite likely she has some latitude in other areas.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Just as a matter of interest did you want Cummings sacked
Yes, of course, but because he is a toxic culture warrior –– not because of his trip to Barnard Castle, which I thought was trivial guff, as I said repeatedly on here at the time.
I'd like to see the moralising authoritarians on PB retained too, although a short period of reflective silence from them would be welcome.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Can kicked for a few more days. Faisal Islam had an interesting point that the PM might accept a bilateral ratchet clause as his concession and sell it as “the Europeans will need to follow OUR high standards!”.
This is the weird thing.
UK standards are higher than with most countries we trade with.
A few years of ratcheting standards, one way or another, will just result in a few tariffs, one way or another.
But it would get the next few dangerous months out of the way and give the UK a chance to make some proper plans and continue to sort out trade deals with the rest of the world.
That would be rational. The EU have set their terms of trade, which we could accept until we reject. Instead, we continue to stand in the hallway, waiting for the "just stay!" offer. Because the admission that they're just not that into us is too embarrassing to bear.
But at some point in the progress from "outermost concentric circle", to "Norway is free", to "Canada [maths symbol] to less than Australia, rationality went out the window.
If the aim is Brexit, WTO is a damn fool destination. If WTO is the intended destination, Johnson's process is a damn fool way of getting there.
“Long-term, unrecognised spread of SARS-CoV-2 in northern Italy would help explain, at least in part, the devastating impact and rapid course of the first wave of COVID-19 in Lombardy.”
We had a friend from Northern Italy come to visit us on 1st December last year. She was really not well and shouldn't have travelled, but did.
On December 11th, I went down with the nastiest bug I have had in decades. Confined to bed for a couple of days with every bone aching, a hacking cough lasting for weeks... I had jokingly said "must have been Covid..." Which it couldn't have been, of course.
Now it is a somewhat more stroky beard "Hmmmm......" of uncertainty.
Well never know for sure. It’s easy to forget that there are other nasty bugs out there. I had a stinky cough over Christmas, then a brief cold in feb. The wife dodged the former, had the later quite hard. We wondered about Covid, but testing through work (phe as part of trials) showed no antibodies. Sometimes someone was really ill in December 2019 because of a horrible virus... that was not Covid.
I had something last November that put me in hospital with pneumonia, but as it was cleared up with a lot of antibiotics it certainly wasn't C-19.
Yes, studies of samples from the UK annual winter respiratory virus survey didn't pick up covid 19 in the wild until the end of February.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
They recommended mail-in voting and ran awareness campaigns to reduce invalid ballots because:
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk 2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day 3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
They recommended mail-in voting and ran awareness campaigns to reduce invalid ballots because:
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk 2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day 3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
It's also an area where ANYONE can audit the results. Call 1,000 in Wisconsin who are supposed to have voted by mail. If you can a meaningful number of them who didn't vote, then that's interesting.
If you find that, they you can drag out their signatures, and we can talk.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
I read somewhere that the head of Gamelya said it was only six days. And now I can't find it and am mildly annoyed.
If Putin thinks a vaccine that requires Russians to lay off booze for two months is gonna work, then he doesn't know his own country.
I'm sure it would be a lazy stereotype to suggest that getting Russians to stop drinking for two months would save a lot of lives even if the vaccine were a placebo.
On a related note it would have done wonders for the health of the UK if people had improved their diet and fitness irrespective of the greatly reduced risk from covid.
It would have been great if the opportunity had been taken to use Covid as a spur to improving the general health and wellbeing of the nation. Sadly we don't have 'health' authorities, we have 'sickness' authorities - we patch people up when they get sick. Keeping them 'healthy' is restricted to absurdly simplistic messages like '5 a day' and 'lose weight'.
OT - I am watching a pretty good Michael Caine film called 'The Fourth Protocol'. Very good actor - I hope he's enjoying his retirement.
I'd argue is that another major issue is we equate the whole issue of health with the NHS. If the NHS doesn't tell us to do it, we seem to think it's not that important. There is no coordination across departments or areas to improve people's fitness.
True, but that perception can be used to the advantage of the messaging, as it enables you to give more power to the messaging if you have it coming from the NHS, and perhaps even backed up by NHS data. Imagine how powerful it would be if the PM advised us (for example) that most severe cases of covid observed in hospital had commonalities across blood tests of depressed (for example) zinc, magnesium, and vitamin D. It would lead to a huge national conversation about nutrition that would be hugely beneficial.
Pretty much everyone in the UK is vitamin D deficient.
Source? A lot of folk in the more northern climes and of more melanated skin yes, but less so down south and paler.
Sunshine doesn't seem to stop lots of people dying in Florida, Texas, Iran, India etc etc
There is lots of Zinc in nuts and seeds. Vegetarians are not zinc deficient. Indeed there is reasonable evidence that being vegetarian is significantly life extending, and healthy years too.
Minerals in nuts, seeds, pulses, vegetables and legumes are great, but harder for the body to absorb than those found in meats, eggs, and dairy.
I don't know what information you're using for the bald statement that vegetarians aren't zinc deficient, or what research you allude to on vegetarianism, but I strongly suspect there are other factors. Vegetarianism is usually a middle class habit, so would correlate strongly with people living a bit longer - that doesn't equal causation.
We have ample evidence from the past to look at, of cultures who have been vegetarian over generations, and none of them have a reputation for longevity.
We have ample evidence though that the saturated fats in meat and dairy are major contributors to heart disease and cancers.
The evidence that optimum healthy diet is predominantly plant based is pretty conclusive. I eat small amounts of meat, a fair bit of oily fish, and am rather fond of cheese, but lots and lots of fruit and veg.
I disagree that we have ample evidence of that. Many of the stipulations of the 'prudent diet' and the demonisation of saturated fats emerged from the Framlingen study in America, which actually found that the group eating less saturated fat was actually far higher in overall morbidity than the low saturated fat group - a finding that was suppressed. Saturated fats don't get off scot-free, because they are the repository of toxins in animals, but if you're dealing with a healthy animal, the fat is nutrient dense and great to eat, as is coconut oil. Apart from anything else, telling people to avoid saturated fat leads to adoption of far less healthy alternatives, such as margarine, and vegetable cooking oils.
The evidence that a 'predominantly plant based' diet is 'the optimum healthy diet' is not 'pretty conclusive' - if it is, I'd love to see you present it. As for what you eat, whilst it's nice to know, it's not really relevant.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
They recommended mail-in voting and ran awareness campaigns to reduce invalid ballots because:
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk 2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day 3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
Those things are true, but it is also true, and has been discussed MANY times on PB, and I would say is the settled PB view, that
A ) Postal voting is extremely open to abuse B ) Voting machines are a total no no, for the same reason x100
But neither of these things are mentioned at all these days, in relation to what was possibly the most hotly contested election in history, because most people here really wanted Trump to lose, and so these two things are deeply unfashionable truths.
Feels classic, get Staines to air some gossip, get the dodgy denial, drip some more info.....
Buried at the bottom of that hatchet job is the key detail that she hasn't been suspended, and nor have any of her colleagues. They are subject to an internal review, which is to be expected, and is rather different.
She is subject to an internal review, Sky confirmed. A spokesman denied anyone had been suspended and said: 'A small number of Sky News staff may have engaged in activity that breached the guidelines.'
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
Maybe they need to take a look at Miss Shillings orifice?
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
Last night you predicted, emphatically, that she and her colleagues would be sacked by 5pm today, despite my giving you several chances at the time to roll back from that unequivocal prediction.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
Can kicked for a few more days. Faisal Islam had an interesting point that the PM might accept a bilateral ratchet clause as his concession and sell it as “the Europeans will need to follow OUR high standards!”.
This is the weird thing.
UK standards are higher than with most countries we trade with.
A few years of ratcheting standards, one way or another, will just result in a few tariffs, one way or another.
But it would get the next few dangerous months out of the way and give the UK a chance to make some proper plans and continue to sort out trade deals with the rest of the world.
That would be rational. The EU have set their terms of trade, which we could accept until we reject. Instead, we continue to stand in the hallway, waiting for the "just stay!" offer. Because the admission that they're just not that into us is too embarrassing to bear.
But at some point in the progress from "outermost concentric circle", to "Norway is free", to "Canada [maths symbol] to less than Australia, rationality went out the window.
If the aim is Brexit, WTO is a damn fool destination. If WTO is the intended destination, Johnson's process is a damn fool way of getting there.
The ERG types would gamble the 90%+ they've already gained for the last little bit.
And I don't think they would enjoy getting the last little bit in any case - they like having the EU to complain about and don't want to take the responsibility of being completely 'free' of it.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
See @Richard_Nabavi's comment at the end of the previous thread.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
They recommended mail-in voting and ran awareness campaigns to reduce invalid ballots because:
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk 2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day 3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
It's also an area where ANYONE can audit the results. Call 1,000 in Wisconsin who are supposed to have voted by mail. If you can a meaningful number of them who didn't vote, then that's interesting.
If you find that, they you can drag out their signatures, and we can talk.
Don't get them started.
"I called up 1000 voters in Wisconsin to ask about their votes and only 200 of them picked up the phone. Clearly the fraud here is off the scale".
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
This is per-pre-prototype welded together in a field by a bunch of redneck welders from the oil industry. With the most sophisticated rocket engines ever built underneath, true....
The SpaceX theory is the you do your exploding early on in the program.... The current version of the Falcon 9 launcher is now the most reliable launcher in the world - depends how you count it, though.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Unfortunately for that view, whether you approve of it or not, the EU is still going to be there: a regulatory super-power on our doorstep, hugely bigger than us, our biggest export market by a country mile, supplying a huge proportion of our food, and critical to all of our manufacturing industry and much of our financial services industry, with no plausible alternative partners to displace its importance to us. Wishing it were different from what it is, or ignoring its place in our economy and more, won't butter any parsnips.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
Last night you predicted, emphatically, that she and her colleagues would be sacked by 5pm today, despite my giving you several chances at the time to roll back from that unequivocal prediction.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
I have put the evidence out there to be judged by my peers, and I’ve moved on. 👋🏻
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
Last night you predicted, emphatically, that she and her colleagues would be sacked by 5pm today, despite my giving you several chances at the time to roll back from that unequivocal prediction.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
I have put the evidence out there to be judged by my peers, and I’ve moved on. 👋🏻
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
Last night you predicted, emphatically, that she and her colleagues would be sacked by 5pm today, despite my giving you several chances at the time to roll back from that unequivocal prediction.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
Nonsense. Boris has been at his Churchillian best all day, the UK are on for a bloody good result this evening.
The bottom line is Rosy is not in the same league as Boris as tough negotiator. The EU may have some good arguments, but that means zilch when comes down to a negotiation, the better negotiator wins regardless of the hand dealt.
The UK wanted it to come down to this. Boris v Rosy. UK wins. This is the guy who negotiated the brexit win with the voters, negotiated to be PM, then destroyed the Labour Party in its heartlands negotiating with the voters.
Disagree? You actually think Rosy is a tougher, better negotiator than Boris is? Just based on your prejudice not fact.
It’s like the Battle of Britain tonight. Blighty v Germany. If Global Britain were to last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was his finest hour.”
I see you were wrong about Kay Burley and all her colleagues being sacked by 5pm today.
Despite your insistence. I predicted a hostage to fortune.
You said, “we’ll see”. And so we did.
They have been suspended pending a full investigation by Sky and if Boulton's comments are anything to go by their careers with Sky are over
I am surprised how you seem to want to defend them
I don't particularly, I just wanted to remind this poster of the outcome of discussion last night.
Despite his insistence, he was of course wrong.
That said, I think sacking them is extreme.
Spin it all you like. 😂. Suspended, and if they don’t come back, I was remarkably spot on with how SKY would protect the integrity of its newsroom.
So who will replace the two ladies, a raid on rival channel to offer promotion, or promote from within. Rottweiler in residence is a niche position for vacancy.
Well, we are miles apart on agreeing this one. And we don’t want to bore the world of death, that’s the job of brexit negotiation. So I put it out there, to be judged by my peers, I said sacked by 5 today, it was suspended by 5 that may yet become moving on without returning to the role, so it’s up to my peers to decide how good a call that was.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
Last night you predicted, emphatically, that she and her colleagues would be sacked by 5pm today, despite my giving you several chances at the time to roll back from that unequivocal prediction.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
Starmer has indicated he'll help it through parliament - whether by backing or more likely abstention I'm not sure but he has about as much influence over whether we get a deal as we do on this forum.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Unfortunately for that view, whether you approve of it or not, the EU is still going to be there: a regulatory super-power on our doorstep, hugely bigger than us, our biggest export market by a country mile, supplying a huge proportion of our food, and critical to all of our manufacturing industry and much of our financial services industry, with no plausible alternative partners to displace its importance to us. Wishing it were different from what it is, or ignoring its place in our economy and more, won't butter any parsnips.
Absolutely it will be. A backwater behemoth that we will leave behind.
Being big doesn't make you better. Johnny Vegas is bigger than Mo Farah but I wouldn't say he's healthier for it. The EU is a fat, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow moving behemoth.
Starmer has indicated he'll help it through parliament - whether by backing or more likely abstention I'm not sure but he has about as much influence over whether we get a deal as we do on this forum.
Yes, but it requires Boris to come back with a deal Starmer can equivocate over before he can get on with the equivocation.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
I wouldn't bet against it though.
The first stage is the same tech - just more engines. They aren't even bothering with a special, near vacuum version of the Raptor rocket engine. So the first stage will be very similar to the second stage - just a bigger thrust structure.
It is the second stage, which they are testing now, which will need to do a full re-entry, swoop of death etc.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
I am sure it will within the decade but it will be 2021 in a few weeks. I do not believe they will have man on the moon by 2024 - this decade certainly they might that is very doable, I just don't see it by 2024.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Really? The EU employs about 32,000 civil servants. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK Government has taken on an extra 40,000 civil servants.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
I am sure it will within the decade but it will be 2021 in a few weeks. I do not believe they will have man on the moon by 2024 - this decade certainly they might that is very doable, I just don't see it by 2024.
You are going to be pleasantly surprised in that case.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
I should think so. They weren't trying for orbit...
There just didn't seem to be enough power after the flip. I think one engine cut out.
Those things are true, but it is also true, and has been discussed MANY times on PB, and I would say is the settled PB view, that
A ) Postal voting is extremely open to abuse B ) Voting machines are a total no no, for the same reason x100
But neither of these things are mentioned at all these days, in relation to what was possibly the most hotly contested election in history, because most people here really wanted Trump to lose, and so these two things are deeply unfashionable truths.
"Postal voting is extremely open to abuse" is a right-wing hobby horse not the settled PB view, except to the extent that the PB comments section is mainly a platform for right-wing hobby horses. I mean, it definitely has attack vectors - the big ones being that it's open to bribery and coercion, because you can show the attacker how you voted - but these aren't really being alleged here, and they're hard to do at scale without getting arrested. OTOH it avoids the "DoS the polling station" attack, which has been a big problem in the US since white people had to start letting black people vote.
With voting machines it depends what they do and how you use them. It used to be pretty common to have machines where the only record of the vote was written on a database on a memory card. This is an extremely bad idea, especially when the machine is closed-source. But in this cycle the Democrats and election administration boffins were extremely paranoid about being hacked by the Russians, so in nearly all the places that matter, they have a voter-verified paper trail. This is probably more secure than pen and paper: You have a machine-recorded vote for a fast count, but you also have the paper ballot. In a full hand recount (as in GA) the machine is basically acting as a glorified printer, but with the extra data from the machine that will tip you off if any of the paper mysteriously got lost. You can get the same result for less money with a randomly sampled audit (which they routinely do in WI/PI/MI) which will tell you if the machines are doing anything shady.
What is true is that there are always conspiracy theories after the election - someone on Twitter was posting the Palmer Report theories from 2016, none of which hold up under inspection, that are almost identical to the claims that are being made by Trump this time. But the difference is that this time the candidate has decided to use them to cash in, instead of letting the right-wing equivalent of Jill Stein get all the donations.
'Texas’s motion for leave to file a lawsuit, which seeks to have the justices throw out the election results in the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin (all of which Trump lost), landed on the high court’s docket on Tuesday. Election law experts dismissed the lawsuit as nothing more than a stunt, albeit a “dangerous” one. But President Trump’s supporters seized on the simple fact that the justices are requiring the states to respond by Thursday as evidence that the court will actually hear—or has actually agreed to hear—the case. It is unlikely that the court will decide to hear the case and the court has not agreed to hear it.'
So, apart from Trump, Contrarian and Betfair, who stills thinks the result might be overturned?
Good evening.
I understand more than a dozen other US states have now joined Texas in seeking redress for the unconstitutional actions by the four states being sued
That's a lot of states for the Supreme Court to ignore, right there.
Indeed, what would be the point of the Supreme Court, or the constitution, if the case were ignored...? the whole thing would be a sham. Maybe it is, anyway.
Interestingly only 7 states formed the original confederacy....
It would be more worrying if SCOTUS overturns the election. It was as safe an election as the USA have ever had,
if in the unlikely event SCOTUS were to hand it to Trump, what happens next? Civil war, key Democrats executed for treason, martial law, summary execution of protesters by the military and the police, what else? It would be American carnage.
Trump probably hasn't seen past his "win".
If SCOTUS overturns it then America is over as a federation of states. How many pieces it will split into and how bad the violence will be in the process is anyone's guess.
I was responding to Contrarian, who seems to think SCOTUS overturning the election would be optimal for the USA.
I never made a claim such an outcome was optimal. But I don;t think an outcome that half the US (according to the polls) thinks is completely bent is an optimal solution either.
They only think it isn't legitimate because Trump has stoked his supporters with bs.
If he had taken defeat like any sane soul would have, none of this nonsense would be an issue.
Fake news from Trump.
Biden is the legitimately elected next President, simple as that.
However there is one glaring issue that no one has yet giving a proper answer to namely why did the rejection rate for mail-in ballots collapse at this election from historical norms?
And, given the Biden camp has admitted, it thought the election would be a lot tighter than the polls suggested, why were the Democrats recommending mail-in ballots when, in a tight election, a few thousand votes one way or another would swing it? Especially after the fiasco in New York, where over 20% of mail-in ballots were rejected?
They recommended mail-in voting and ran awareness campaigns to reduce invalid ballots because:
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk 2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day 3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
Those things are true, but it is also true, and has been discussed MANY times on PB, and I would say is the settled PB view, that
A ) Postal voting is extremely open to abuse B ) Voting machines are a total no no, for the same reason x100
But neither of these things are mentioned at all these days, in relation to what was possibly the most hotly contested election in history, because most people here really wanted Trump to lose, and so these two things are deeply unfashionable truths.
Re 1: it's not that open.
If you see lots of people voting on behalf other people, then that will be quickly discovered. Simply you'll see lots of "I turned up at the polling booth discovered I'd already voted!" And, you can always call 20 or 30 people on the "voted by mail" list (which is publicly available). So, it's trivially easy to see if people were voting on behalf of other people in any scale.
A bigger issue, one would think, would be "community leaders" (or indeed household ones) putting pressure on people regarding how they should vote.
If that was an issue here, you'd expect to see disproportionate increases in turnout in minority areas. But that didn't happen here.
Re voting machines, I agree 100%. That being said, if there was an issue, you'd see it in one side doing disproportionately well when a certain voting machine manufacturer was used. And that wasn't the case here either. Biden didn't do particularly well in Dominion areas, it's just that Dominion was used in a number of closely fought areas.
Fundamentally, though, it's very easy to see if there's genuine fraud from statistical analysis. Are individual state (or city) level performances out of line with the national result. And the reality is that with a 4.5% national lead (and the 1% swing to the Dems was pretty consistent irrespective of where you look), then Biden was always going to win the Presidency.
Indeed, if Trump had narrowly won WI/MI/PA with this national vote distribution, that would be massively more suspicious than the actual result we saw.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
Which rockets would those be (other than perhaps the Chinese) ?
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Unfortunately for that view, whether you approve of it or not, the EU is still going to be there: a regulatory super-power on our doorstep, hugely bigger than us, our biggest export market by a country mile, supplying a huge proportion of our food, and critical to all of our manufacturing industry and much of our financial services industry, with no plausible alternative partners to displace its importance to us. Wishing it were different from what it is, or ignoring its place in our economy and more, won't butter any parsnips.
Absolutely it will be. A backwater behemoth that we will leave behind.
Being big doesn't make you better. Johnny Vegas is bigger than Mo Farah but I wouldn't say he's healthier for it. The EU is a fat, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow moving behemoth.
Two things about shit metaphors: they are shit, and they are metaphors.
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
I should think so. They weren't trying for orbit...
There just didn't seem to be enough power after the flip. I think one engine cut out.
Musk said in his tweet that tank pressurisation was low. That would have lead to voids (bubbles) in the fuel, the turbines being upset and the cooling in the combustion chamber would have been mucked up. Which would lead to engine rich combustion. There was a fair bit of green in the engine plume at the end.....
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
I am sure it will within the decade but it will be 2021 in a few weeks. I do not believe they will have man on the moon by 2024 - this decade certainly they might that is very doable, I just don't see it by 2024.
You are going to be pleasantly surprised in that case.
Apart from the symbolism, what is the point of putting anyone on the moon right now?
I presume the engines were suppose to turn themselves of on the SpaceX rocket....
You mean the way the rocket appears to be falling engine-less...
Oppppppsssssssssssssss.......
It was only the last few feet which were the problem.
The major point of the test was the so called "swoop of death" - first done by the DC-X, a much smaller design. Fly up, shut the engines off, coast down sideways, relight the engine and then tip back to vertical.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Were the engines supposed to cut out in the sequence they did (going up) ? Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
They didn't release the test script. But cutting from 3 to 2 to 1 to 0 engines makes sense. Rocket engines shutting down quite often causes those interesting belches, particularly at low velocities in the lower atmosphere.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
Which rockets would those be (other than perhaps the Chinese) ?
Well, there is SLS
Which just failed a fuel loading test, after $50 billion dollars got spent on the program.
The prototype that SpaceX just destroyed cost a lot less than $50 million - probably closer to $5 million. A lot depends on the cost of the engines, for that...
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Unfortunately for that view, whether you approve of it or not, the EU is still going to be there: a regulatory super-power on our doorstep, hugely bigger than us, our biggest export market by a country mile, supplying a huge proportion of our food, and critical to all of our manufacturing industry and much of our financial services industry, with no plausible alternative partners to displace its importance to us. Wishing it were different from what it is, or ignoring its place in our economy and more, won't butter any parsnips.
Absolutely it will be. A backwater behemoth that we will leave behind.
Being big doesn't make you better. Johnny Vegas is bigger than Mo Farah but I wouldn't say he's healthier for it. The EU is a fat, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow moving behemoth.
Two things about shit metaphors: they are shit, and they are metaphors.
They're a bit like a well oiled chihuahua, I think you'll agree.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
Which rockets would those be (other than perhaps the Chinese) ?
Well, there is SLS
Which just failed a fuel loading test, after $50 billion dollars got spent on the program.
The prototype that SpaceX just destroyed cost a lot less than $50 million - probably closer to $5 million. A lot depends on the cost of the engines, for that...
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
I am sure it will within the decade but it will be 2021 in a few weeks. I do not believe they will have man on the moon by 2024 - this decade certainly they might that is very doable, I just don't see it by 2024.
You are going to be pleasantly surprised in that case.
Apart from the symbolism, what is the point of putting anyone on the moon right now?
It's the necessary first step if the UK is going to get an FTA with it.
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I think you guys are way off. There’s 8 (eight!) more starship prototypes already in various stages of construction. We could see version 9 fly within the next week even. Once the design is fixed, they will be “mass produced” on site at the launchpad in Texas. This rocket will utterly dominate space flight, and sooner than 2024.
I am sure it will within the decade but it will be 2021 in a few weeks. I do not believe they will have man on the moon by 2024 - this decade certainly they might that is very doable, I just don't see it by 2024.
You are going to be pleasantly surprised in that case.
Apart from the symbolism, what is the point of putting anyone on the moon right now?
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
I presume they'll need to refuel a ship in Earth orbit in order to get there fast enough not to get too big a radiation dose.
Might have to be done at Solar Minimum? If at all...
Rather puts a guy off space tourism, or am I just being a bit yellow? 🤔
This was an experimental prototype, there was always a risk of it going this way. There's a reason there were no crew on board.
People aren't going to be onboard for a very long time. Remember this is only half the eventual vehicle too ! They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ? Mars is a way off.
I thought they were claiming man on the moon by 2024?
I don't believe it for a second though.
People on the Moon by 2024 will not rely on Starship: there are other rockets out there which have been a bit more tested.
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
Which rockets would those be (other than perhaps the Chinese) ?
Well, there is SLS
Which just failed a fuel loading test, after $50 billion dollars got spent on the program.....
That cost is a slight exaggeration. For fiscal years 2011 through 2020, the SLS program had expended funding totaling US$18.648 billion in nominal dollars. This is equivalent to US$20.314 billion in 2020 dollars using the NASA New Start Inflation Indices
About $40bn if they carry on with the program to 2025. As each flight will cost maybe $500m, depending on how you account for it, I suspect they won’t for very much longer, once the Starship has reached orbit.
Starmer has indicated he'll help it through parliament - whether by backing or more likely abstention I'm not sure but he has about as much influence over whether we get a deal as we do on this forum.
Yes, but it requires Boris to come back with a deal Starmer can equivocate over before he can get on with the equivocation.
If he comes back without a deal, I think there'd be a case for Labour putting down a vote of no confidence. Not because it would win, of course, but to put down a substantial marker if things go wrong, and to get back into the conversation.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
Bolded is key. There can be an assessment of who mucks up more, and I think we all know where people will fall on that debate, but essentially despite years of talks and Brexit itself being caused by the same issue, the sides continue to misunderstand the other, and frankly show no interest in changing that. The supporters on each side prefer to simply demonstrate their contempt for the other, and I find it hard to believe some of that is not affecting the negotiators and lead figures.
Ultimately they cannot get away with either being ok with it, or not, and if it is the latter and they say nothing it is cowardice. Perhaps understandable cowardice, but keeping their heads down until Trump is actually gone and then hoping his influence wanes may not be a viable strategy, particularly when the silence from most and full throated support from others simply increases the chance he will have influence for a long time to come. Maybe they cannot stop that, but they could try. I know holding office is an end in itself for most politicians, but they are also supposed to be leaders, not followers.
It's important to remember that Ursula von der Leyen has no authority to make material changes to the EU's agreed position. So there was zero possibility of this cosy dinner producing any concessions from EU side. The most it could have produced is an undertaking from her to consult with the EU premiers to see whether any UK proposal for a possible way out of the impasse might be acceptable. It's very hard to know if the UK did make any such proposal; if Boris simply repeated the Brexiteer nonsense about sovereignty without proposing anything new, then we're heading for no-deal crash-out. In that scenario, bad for the EU and disastrous for the UK, the EU will simply wait for the UK to come to its senses.
If the EU don't want to put it's principle decision makers who have authority to compromise in the room then what is Boris supposed to do?
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
Rule number 1 of any half-decent sales or negotiating course: understand who makes the decisions. The UK has got this wrong all along. It's not Barnier, or the Commission, or Ursula van der Leyen. Nor is it Merkel, or Macron, individually, so there's no point trying to deal with them on the side. Instead you have to work with the internal horse-trading dynamics of the EU, which are complex.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Really? The EU employs about 32,000 civil servants. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK Government has taken on an extra 40,000 civil servants.
And the UK is a fully functioning democracy.
The EU is 27 disperse nations that can't between them agree anyone to sit in a room with Boris as equals able to make a decision or compromise.
One thing he doesn’t mention is that for a large number of countries, it will be available in bulk a good six months before the two which have been demonstrated to be more significantly effective. Which moves the risk/benefit calculation significantly in its favour.
The UK has not got this wrong. The EU is you are right a terrible organisation that can't organise a piss up in a brewery that much is true. That is also why we are leaving. Good riddance.
Unfortunately for that view, whether you approve of it or not, the EU is still going to be there: a regulatory super-power on our doorstep, hugely bigger than us, our biggest export market by a country mile, supplying a huge proportion of our food, and critical to all of our manufacturing industry and much of our financial services industry, with no plausible alternative partners to displace its importance to us. Wishing it were different from what it is, or ignoring its place in our economy and more, won't butter any parsnips.
Absolutely it will be. A backwater behemoth that we will leave behind.
Being big doesn't make you better. Johnny Vegas is bigger than Mo Farah but I wouldn't say he's healthier for it. The EU is a fat, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow moving behemoth.
One thing he doesn’t mention is that for a large number of countries, it will be available in bulk a good six months before the two which have been demonstrated to be more significantly effective. Which moves the risk/benefit calculation significantly in its favour.
Yes: I think AZN will likely become the default option for people who want something now and don't want to wait.
One thing he doesn’t mention is that for a large number of countries, it will be available in bulk a good six months before the two which have been demonstrated to be more significantly effective. Which moves the risk/benefit calculation significantly in its favour.
One thing that hasn't got anywhere near coverage is the 0% hospitalisation from those who got the vaccine.
Even if you do get it and have a nasty week of illness, but it doesn't result in anything serious, that isn't a bad outcome.
Obviously there is the potential issue of long covid etc, but still, I think most people would take that over nothing.
Comments
The evidence that optimum healthy diet is predominantly plant based is pretty conclusive. I eat small amounts of meat, a fair bit of oily fish, and am rather fond of cheese, but lots and lots of fruit and veg.
If someone doesn't have authority to compromise then it should be escalated to whoever does and they should be in the room.
No matter how much some people fantasise (without understanding the underlying facts) that a Singapore on the Severn can be created by doing so.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9036255/Pictured-Kay-Burleys-60th-birthday-bash-left-presenters-future-Sky-News-balance.html
Feels classic, get Staines to air some gossip, get the dodgy denial, drip some more info.....
But at some point in the progress from "outermost concentric circle", to "Norway is free", to "Canada [maths symbol] to less than Australia, rationality went out the window.
If the aim is Brexit, WTO is a damn fool destination. If WTO is the intended destination, Johnson's process is a damn fool way of getting there.
1) It helps with turnout in a way that may well exceed the rejection risk
2) It reduces the chances of Trump attempting to DoS their in-person vote on the day
3) They're in the middle of a HUGE PANDEMIC THAT HAS KILLED A QUARTER OF MILLION PEOPLE WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU HOW CAN YOU FOLLOW THE NEWS AND STILL NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION
If you find that, they you can drag out their signatures, and we can talk.
We used to have people who understood all this. They got booted out. People like Sir Ivan Rogers:
On 11 October 2018, in Cambridge, Rogers delivered a lecture on "Brexit as Revolution", in which he said that he continued to think that the risks of an accidental "no deal" Brexit caused by persistent British misreading of others' incentives and views, and by the EU's frequent inability to comprehend UK politics, were higher than was in the price.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Rogers
The evidence that a 'predominantly plant based' diet is 'the optimum healthy diet' is not 'pretty conclusive' - if it is, I'd love to see you present it. As for what you eat, whilst it's nice to know, it's not really relevant.
An intact prototype would have been a bonus, of course.
SpaceX got what they wanted from this test - they've got the next test vehicle (SN9) ready to roll out and try more stuff with.
Now for you, a Niche job of Rottweiler has come up, don’t take this the wrong way, but, they could do worse than offer it to you. IMO what Barnett done to Jez was beautiful work, better than paxo, different league than Burley.
But you are wrong, in that it is right they should go. Any, and I repeat any, sky news broadcaster wishing to question anyones values would be instantly undermined by their staying in post. It’s about protecting the integrity of a newsroom they let down. And they will probably admit as much in their leaving statements totally pulling the rug from under you. That’s my next bold prediction 😁
A ) Postal voting is extremely open to abuse
B ) Voting machines are a total no no, for the same reason x100
But neither of these things are mentioned at all these days, in relation to what was possibly the most hotly contested election in history, because most people here really wanted Trump to lose, and so these two things are deeply unfashionable truths.
She is subject to an internal review, Sky confirmed. A spokesman denied anyone had been suspended and said: 'A small number of Sky News staff may have engaged in activity that breached the guidelines.'
Looked a bit funky to me.
Still, they got plenty of data to work on, and the flip looked pretty good.
Burley hasn't been sacked, and nor have any of her colleagues. She and/or they may be dismissed in future, but that wasn't the point we were arguing over.
You were quite wrong, and I suggest you concede the point before embarrassing yourself further.
And I don't think they would enjoy getting the last little bit in any case - they like having the EU to complain about and don't want to take the responsibility of being completely 'free' of it.
Will be interesting to see what Musk tweets about the test.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1336809767574982658?s=20
"I called up 1000 voters in Wisconsin to ask about their votes and only 200 of them picked up the phone. Clearly the fraud here is off the scale".
The SpaceX theory is the you do your exploding early on in the program.... The current version of the Falcon 9 launcher is now the most reliable launcher in the world - depends how you count it, though.
They might go for an unmanned mission to the moon in perhaps 2024 or so ?
Mars is a way off.
I do love the acronym RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly)
I don't believe it for a second though.
Brilliant test though!
That said, it looks to have been a very useful test. (FWIW, I’m a very, very small investor, through the Baillie Gifford US Growth Trust.)
Mars on the other hand probably will need it.
Being big doesn't make you better. Johnny Vegas is bigger than Mo Farah but I wouldn't say he's healthier for it. The EU is a fat, bureaucratic, sclerotic, slow moving behemoth.
The first stage is the same tech - just more engines. They aren't even bothering with a special, near vacuum version of the Raptor rocket engine. So the first stage will be very similar to the second stage - just a bigger thrust structure.
It is the second stage, which they are testing now, which will need to do a full re-entry, swoop of death etc.
Since the Brexit referendum, the UK Government has taken on an extra 40,000 civil servants.
There just didn't seem to be enough power after the flip. I think one engine cut out.
With voting machines it depends what they do and how you use them. It used to be pretty common to have machines where the only record of the vote was written on a database on a memory card. This is an extremely bad idea, especially when the machine is closed-source. But in this cycle the Democrats and election administration boffins were extremely paranoid about being hacked by the Russians, so in nearly all the places that matter, they have a voter-verified paper trail. This is probably more secure than pen and paper: You have a machine-recorded vote for a fast count, but you also have the paper ballot. In a full hand recount (as in GA) the machine is basically acting as a glorified printer, but with the extra data from the machine that will tip you off if any of the paper mysteriously got lost. You can get the same result for less money with a randomly sampled audit (which they routinely do in WI/PI/MI) which will tell you if the machines are doing anything shady.
What is true is that there are always conspiracy theories after the election - someone on Twitter was posting the Palmer Report theories from 2016, none of which hold up under inspection, that are almost identical to the claims that are being made by Trump this time. But the difference is that this time the candidate has decided to use them to cash in, instead of letting the right-wing equivalent of Jill Stein get all the donations.
If you see lots of people voting on behalf other people, then that will be quickly discovered. Simply you'll see lots of "I turned up at the polling booth discovered I'd already voted!" And, you can always call 20 or 30 people on the "voted by mail" list (which is publicly available). So, it's trivially easy to see if people were voting on behalf of other people in any scale.
A bigger issue, one would think, would be "community leaders" (or indeed household ones) putting pressure on people regarding how they should vote.
If that was an issue here, you'd expect to see disproportionate increases in turnout in minority areas. But that didn't happen here.
Re voting machines, I agree 100%. That being said, if there was an issue, you'd see it in one side doing disproportionately well when a certain voting machine manufacturer was used. And that wasn't the case here either. Biden didn't do particularly well in Dominion areas, it's just that Dominion was used in a number of closely fought areas.
Fundamentally, though, it's very easy to see if there's genuine fraud from statistical analysis. Are individual state (or city) level performances out of line with the national result. And the reality is that with a 4.5% national lead (and the 1% swing to the Dems was pretty consistent irrespective of where you look), then Biden was always going to win the Presidency.
Indeed, if Trump had narrowly won WI/MI/PA with this national vote distribution, that would be massively more suspicious than the actual result we saw.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1336803494045622273?s=21
It’s why I got some shares in the BG trust.
Which just failed a fuel loading test, after $50 billion dollars got spent on the program.
The prototype that SpaceX just destroyed cost a lot less than $50 million - probably closer to $5 million. A lot depends on the cost of the engines, for that...
Might have to be done at Solar Minimum? If at all...
For fiscal years 2011 through 2020, the SLS program had expended funding totaling US$18.648 billion in nominal dollars. This is equivalent to US$20.314 billion in 2020 dollars using the NASA New Start Inflation Indices
About $40bn if they carry on with the program to 2025.
As each flight will cost maybe $500m, depending on how you account for it, I suspect they won’t for very much longer, once the Starship has reached orbit.
(though it’s not entirely impossible that several deep state conspiracies are going on, AND Trump lost.)
https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/1336682048254316544
The EU is 27 disperse nations that can't between them agree anyone to sit in a room with Boris as equals able to make a decision or compromise.
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/09/the-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-efficacy-data
One thing he doesn’t mention is that for a large number of countries, it will be available in bulk a good six months before the two which have been demonstrated to be more significantly effective.
Which moves the risk/benefit calculation significantly in its favour.
Even if you do get it and have a nasty week of illness, but it doesn't result in anything serious, that isn't a bad outcome.
Obviously there is the potential issue of long covid etc, but still, I think most people would take that over nothing.