I mean I'd rather have the backing from people who attended the University of Life than those that went to the Universities of Oxford, Hull, and Brighton.
That's a very specific list. Not that I am complaining about the first item on it, of course.
Well Oxford and Hull complete dumps.
A few months ago a friend and I were trying to come up with the most left wing city in the UK, we decided on Brighton because they elect a Green MP.
Hull, the uni, has some good bits. Hull-York Medical School, the environment/geography departments do good stuff (others may too, but those are the ones I know). The new bits of campus are also very nice. I wouldn't choose to live in most of the city, but then neither do the Hull academics I know.
I literally owe my very existence to Hull University. My parents met there,
I know three very bright people that went there. Where someone went to university is largely a function of their good fortune as to the wealth of their parents and the quality of their schooling, and/or whether they were attentive in class. Also in response to TSE's wanky statement there are many people who have no qualifications that are wiser ( and possibly with higher IQs) than many featherbedded Oxbridge grads.
I mean I'd rather have the backing from people who attended the University of Life than those that went to the Universities of Oxford, Hull, and Brighton.
That's a very specific list. Not that I am complaining about the first item on it, of course.
Well Oxford and Hull complete dumps.
A few months ago a friend and I were trying to come up with the most left wing city in the UK, we decided on Brighton because they elect a Green MP.
Hull, the uni, has some good bits. Hull-York Medical School, the environment/geography departments do good stuff (others may too, but those are the ones I know). The new bits of campus are also very nice. I wouldn't choose to live in most of the city, but then neither do the Hull academics I know.
I literally owe my very existence to Hull University. My parents met there,
So I'm doing Whitstable Doug. Lovely little place. Don't know why you ever left.
I haven’t gone far. I live in a village called Wye between Canterbury and Ashford, about 15 miles away. My parents still live in Blean which is on the Canterbury-Whitstable Road. Can’t afford Whitstable these days!
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
See point 2. Otherwise I rather agree. And actually I think I'm faking it, I genuinely can't remember whether I ever put the £30 in the post or not. Wouldn't have been like me to do that.
ETA and doesn't Cambridge do the same thing?
It does, doesn't make it right. I mean I don't like the fact that you need an MA to vote in the election of a new Chancellor or High Steward.
Not everyone understands Cambridge and Oxford allow you to do this, and I don't want people thinking I have a genuine masters when I don't.
Taking the knee, fine, sharing the captaincy, absurd. Why not make the other players captain too.
Do they take it in turns, and how frequently?
Maybe they just vote on everything. As there is three of them as long as it is a binary vote there will be a winner (assuming no abstention)
What is there to vote on? It's a purely honorific position; all meaningful decisions are made by the manager. The captain is, at most, an intermediary between players and manager, both on and off the pitch. Having three people performing the role in practice is almost always strictly better than having one, regardless of whether it's formalised or not.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
Yup. As you suggest, it’s not a 90/10 problem, it’s a 99.999/0.0001 problem.
The only way SD vehicles will be deployed, is if they build another Milton Keynes around them, with separate and dedicated roads.
It would be useful to know what Moonshine's background is - I think most people here know we are both from a technical IT background
NI affairs committee hears that truck driver shortage also hitting NI. Sarah Hardy, biz dev of AM Nexday says even with salary hikes of 15% to 20% she cannot get drivers. Hardy: Its "perfect storm of covid and Brexit" people happy to remain on furlough and EU drivers staying away https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1415596383336288260
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
See point 2. Otherwise I rather agree. And actually I think I'm faking it, I genuinely can't remember whether I ever put the £30 in the post or not. Wouldn't have been like me to do that.
ETA and doesn't Cambridge do the same thing?
It does, doesn't make it right. I mean I don't like the fact that you need an MA to vote in the election of a new Chancellor or High Steward.
Not everyone understands Cambridge and Oxford allow you to do this, and I don't want people thinking I have a genuine masters when I don't.
A byblow of all this is that Oxford has to find other names for its actual Masters degrees such as MSt and MTh when MSc can't be crowbarred in (as, curiously, it is for Local History ...).
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
The very poorest in society are being taxed more thanks to fuel duty if they drive.
Do you think that its right that some of the poorest in society are paying 10% of their disposable income to fuel duty while some considerably wealthier in society are getting the state funding their train journeys? If the externalities of fuel are removed by drivers switching to clean vehicles, why is it right that such a regressive situation should continue?
I'll take your word for it on the kwh. Last time we discussed this, that number was calculated and seemed to be accepted by all in the discussion and I'm just going from memory but I don't have time now to go through the calculations again.
The very poorest in society tend not to have cars.
Please, don't let mere facts get in the way of Philip's narrative.
Just because you don't drive doesn't mean you aren't reliant on decent roads.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is for company's to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Also given that lorries spend hours on the road, exactly how long will this downtime be..
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Bit like saying that someone on resdidential duty in a home or hospital doesn't get paid when they are sleeping, which IIRC was declared legal recently.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Bit like saying that someone on resdidential duty in a home or hospital doesn't get paid when they are sleeping, which IIRC was declared legal recently.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it morally right - the reality will be that no-one will take the job.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Is it? Is a cab (modified perhaps, easy chair, nice TV etc) worse than sitting in a motorway service station/lorry park? I freely admit I'm ignorant in this, but I doubt many lorry drivers get to do particularly fun things in particularly nice places during their legally required breaks. If they're sightseeing in Whitstable or going off for nice walks in the countryside during breaks then it clearly would be worse to be stuck in the cab.
You'd still need physical breaks, of couse. But not the x hours required by law between driving stints.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Bit like saying that someone on resdidential duty in a home or hospital doesn't get paid when they are sleeping, which IIRC was declared legal recently.
I'm not suggesting that.
Driver should get paid for being in the vehicle (do they get paid on legal breaks now? I assume so, but maybe I'm wrong?).
What it would enable is using the lorry more. You could potentially run a haulage business with the same number of drivers working the same number of hours, but fewer lorries, because while the drivers get the same amount of non-driving time the lorries get less.
(Whether that actually saves a lot is a good question - if you use the lorries more they last less time, but same miles presumably.. So over 20 years maybe you end up buying as many lorries? But if you can get from A to B more quickly that opens up more possibilities particularly for perishable goods, possible competition with other modes)
Anyway, I was just disagreeing with the idea that there could be no savings fom automated driving on particular road types. You could also, of course, have different drivers at each end and no one in the cab for the automated part, which could work for repetitive haulage with well defined start and end points. All of which of course relies on fully automated driving anywhere, which - like eek, I don't see any time soon, particularly for large vehicles with no one present at all.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Is it? Is a cab (modified perhaps, easy chair, nice TV etc) worse than sitting in a motorway service station/lorry park? I freely admit I'm ignorant in this, but I doubt many lorry drivers get to do particularly fun things in particularly nice places during their legally required breaks. If they're sightseeing in Whitstable or going off for nice walks in the countryside during breaks then it clearly would be worse to be stuck in the cab.
You'd still need physical breaks, of couse. But not the x hours required by law between driving stints.
The issue is that a break will be 1 hour max. How many hours will a lorry spend driving down a motorway - it's probably 80% of the working day.
Road pricing.... that's another thing that got the electorate absolutely steaming when it was talked about 15 years ago.
Talk of higher taxes on fuel / airplane travel, road pricing, id cards, those 3 things seemed to really piss a lot of people off when Labour was in power. Hence why the second two got ditched.
Maybe things have changed now among the electorate in regards to this. We will see.
It hasn't but if get £800 a car from duty on fuel and need to get that money from somewhere there really isn't that many options.
Road pricing will have to be investigated as the other options are worse in different ways
Fuel was taxed because fuel had externalities and was environmentally toxic.
Now that drivers are switching away from fuel, there seems to be a desire to keep raising revenues from drivers rather than simply accept that fuel has gone and that society as a whole needs to pay for its costs.
Its like having if smokers all quit smoking placing a tax on ex-smokers to replace tobacco taxes.
Motorists should still pay some form of tax to, as a bare minimum, fund the road network.
Absolutely that is reasonable. VED raises nearly as much as is spent on the roads. Fuel duty raises about £40bn more than is spent on the roads.
Keeping VED and having approximately half a penny per kWh would replace all of fuel duty and be "fair". Drivers would be paying via when they refuel their electric cars and would still pay more tax from that than is spent on roads - but the rest of society would pay its fair share too.
again - adding it the electricity isn't fair on those who don't have a car, it's regressive because it impacts people who don't currently pay that tax.
And it needs to raise £28bn to offset the tax fuel duty collects (2019/20 figure - last years was surprisingly £21bn)
Just because the justification for the tax has gone that doesn't mean the need for the money disappears.
Why's it unfair on those who don't have a car? Considering almost all of the money raised isn't spent on the roads, why should they be exempt from paying taxes?
The need for the money to fund the NHS or pensions or whatever else you want to spend on is not the same as the need for the money to come from drivers.
And taxing driving is far more regressive than taxing electricity. Poor drivers pay an estimated 10% of their disposable income on fuel duty, that's currently justified due to the green externalities on fuel but if they cease to use fuel why should they remain so heavily taxed?
They aren't exempt from paying taxes but you've just increased the level of tax on the very poorest people in society.
Oh and unless I'm missing something the tax on each kwh needs to be 73p not 0.5p... 0.5p would raise £185m
Tax things you want less of, tax exempt (or subsidise) things you want more of. Price in externalities.
Most damage caused to roads is by HGVs, especially on local roads. We don’t want that. So tax the balls off them, if necessary to be replaced by smaller vehicles. Costs won’t change too much when the drivers disappear.
Things we don’t want: congestion. Things we do want: mobility. So dynamic road pricing. No need to tax the rural driver popping to the local shop. Meanwhile the person driving to Harrods…
We don’t like air pollution, noise and carbon emissions. So grade tax for all three.
We also don’t like inefficient capital allocation to underused assets. So incentivise car sharing by applying a zero income tax band to income from sharing your car. Will be even more important when autonomous driving gets here.
Think that’s it.
Unless you know something I don't (and I watch automation like a hawk) we aren't going to see fully automated driving anytime soon.
Define soon. I have full confidence that the private sector will achieve it earlier than the Whitehall is operationally ready to implement dynamic road pricing.
anytime before 2040 - it really is a 99.999/0.0001 problem rather than a 90/10% problem as other IT solutions are.
It will almost certainly be available earlier than 2040, and absolutely certainly if we limit the discussion to defined road types.
Once you limit it to defined road types you've still got a driver in the lorry so your savings have gone.
(While also skeptical on automation in the nearish future) if you had e.g. a lorry that could self-drive on motorways then you've still got big potential savings, depending on route, by making that the driver's off time (if regulations allow) so that effectively the lorry can from A to B on a long trip with no/very few breaks at all (driver legal breaks timed mostly during automated driving). You still have a driver on board for the whole journey, but the journey is shorter in time, so you can do more journeys per vehicle per week.
So the solution is to abuse the drivers down time. Nice.
Is it? Is a cab (modified perhaps, easy chair, nice TV etc) worse than sitting in a motorway service station/lorry park? I freely admit I'm ignorant in this, but I doubt many lorry drivers get to do particularly fun things in particularly nice places during their legally required breaks. If they're sightseeing in Whitstable or going off for nice walks in the countryside during breaks then it clearly would be worse to be stuck in the cab.
You'd still need physical breaks, of couse. But not the x hours required by law between driving stints.
The issue is that a break will be 1 hour max. How many hours will a lorry spend driving down a motorway - it's probably 80% of the working day.
So, I just looked up the legal breaks - yep, they're really short aren't they? The schedules for what is permitted are really quite scary! So what you'd actually save in this way is pretty negligible. I'm wrong.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature....
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
It does save having to remember whether they are Lecturers or Readers or whatever.
I have encountered the Christ Church, Oxford, title 'Student' for a category of Fellow. On checking, they stull use it - with the happy result that there are Ordinary, Emeritus and Honorary Students, and yet the College website also has a section for 'current students' aka undergrads.
Taking the knee, fine, sharing the captaincy, absurd. Why not make the other players captain too.
So they're the captains of England, Scotland and Wales. The squad contains 2 Scots,1 Welsh and 19 English. No wonder women's football is a bit of a joke.
Are you joking, or is that really the case?
It's simply the Council of the Isles solution, after all.
It's an artefact that the FA and clubs have invested a lot of money in the WSL and women's football in general.
Sadly the Welsh, Scots, and Irish football clubs do not have the inclination or resources to develop women's football.
It involves a lot of time and money at the grassroots and youth level, it may happen in the future, I did read a while back that it is something Mrs Sturgeon is looking at doing as part of a wider better health campaign.
I'd say it is institutionalising division.
Nah.
The Premier League is the richest league in the world, the FA is one better run FAs in the world.
In the PL in the last decade only one side have successfully defended their title.
In Scotland you have talk of 10 in a row and the last side other than Rangers or Celtic to win Scotland's top flight was Aberdeen, 36 years ago.
It is why so many of us opposed a closed shop European Super League.
The Championship is an even better league though. No team has ever defended the title.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
That was the one thing I was hoping would never happen over here. I liked the fact there was just one or two professors in each department, because the title really meant something.
Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature....
That is FAKE news!!!! DJT is not mentally unstable, he is one of the most STABLEIST people in the world, probably ever. He is consistently bonkers, day in, day out.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
That was the one thing I was hoping would never happen over here. I liked the fact there was just one or two professors in each department, because the title really meant something.
I wonder if it will lead to the academic equivalent of the problem that the military historian, Keegan, noted in the US - that the spread of the title "General" to every pen pusher in the Pentagon had greatly increased the pool of entitled idiots who thought they were Alexander the Great/Napoleon/etc
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Teaching is best done by teachers. Professors are best researching and publishing. Very few are suited to both.
Surprised it’s that high, to be honest. Facebook and Google are seriously worried about this, it’s the first real exposing of their consumer-is-the-product business model.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
That was the one thing I was hoping would never happen over here. I liked the fact there was just one or two professors in each department, because the title really meant something.
Ah, but the reason why that has changed is nothing to do with the US ... and everything to with house price inflation.
If you are a lecturer in a leafy University town, you won't be able to afford to buy a house on a lecturer's salary.
So, the University has to promote you to a Professor quickly ... otherwise you will just leave and do something else.
Hence, you end up with Departments that are 100 per cent Professors.
In fact, in some leafy University towns, the new Professors still can't afford a house (though the older ones bought their houses 20 years ago and are sitting on massive gains)
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Seems a bit unfair on school teachers, considering the extent to which universities now are doing the job of sixth forms a generation or two ago. If that.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Teaching is best done by teachers. Professors are best researching and publishing. Very few are suited to both.
Sheldon: So your solution is to promote me and pay me more money so I can impart my knowledge to the next generation of scientists? Janine Davis: Yes. Sheldon: You people are sick.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Seems a bit unfair on school teachers, considering the extent to which universities now are doing the job of sixth forms a generation or two ago. If that.
Quite.
A professor I know at a Russell Group university setup a remedial maths course for incoming students. Who couldn't differentiate and integrate comfortably. Despite having A at A level....
You can buy a beat up old banger for less than a single month's lease on a BMW.
I can lease a 216i for less than £250/month. If you can get a functional car that doesn't need work and provides long term reliable transport for less than that it's by sheer luck.
There's an auction for classic cars with viewings over the next three days. The company is called Historics. Do you know anything about them?
Yep, their reputation is no worse than anyone else in the car game.
There's very rarely value at high end auctions though. Cars go to that sort of auction because there is either no liquidity for that type of car which makes it hard to price or the owner is greedy and hasn't been able to get the price they feel they deserve by any other means.
Interesting. I have a car that I've had for years and on impulse I decided to sell it. So I put in the make of car and 'Historics' came up. I gave them a call and they sounded civilised and asked what I was hoping to get. 'I said I hadn't the faintest idea. I hadn't thought of selling it until that morning and it hadn't been on the road for 20 years'. I told him it was in terrible condition but he seemed to think that might be an advantage! The auction is this Saturday. No reserve so it's quite exciting
In my time at my employer I have changed title from Lecturer, to Research Fellow and now Assistant Professor. Only one of those changes involved a shift in salary grade. I think a lot is re-branding and because there is, as noted, an increasing division between teaching staff and research staff.
I disagree with dixiedean a little. Yes, being an excellent researcher doesn't automatically equate with being a good teacher and vice versa; they are different skills. However there is a push to ensure that teaching is research informed. Students, we are told, want to learn from those who are doing the research and that seems fair enough to me.
The key is training. My role is principally research, but I am strongly encouraged to build my teaching skills and gain suitable accreditation qualifications here. I am, for example, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Personally, I think the more common assumption that needs tackling is that Professors are best suited to do management/leadership tasks. While training can again help, I think ring-fencing management/leadership within departments to senior researchers is often unhelpful.
Ultimately the technology changes in teaching may well help researchers enhance their teaching by working with course designers to communicate their work. It is blended learning after all that will be the future of HE education I think.
Surprised it’s that high, to be honest. Facebook and Google are seriously worried about this, it’s the first real exposing of their consumer-is-the-product business model.
I just assumed most of the 25% couldn't work out how to change the settings.
Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature....
That is FAKE news!!!! DJT is not mentally unstable, he is one of the most STABLEIST people in the world, probably ever. He is consistently bonkers, day in, day out.
We don’t need supposed leak papers. The populist tide in US has produced enough evidence it’s weakened US opposition to Kremlin objectives. So step aside from actual elections, what are they doing to maintain that populist tide? We saw overnight ALL VACCINATIONS cancelled in one state due to GOP pressure.
All the conspiracy theory placards held up by Trump supporters come to them from Russian bots?
It doesn’t need a leak, we already know who the Kremlin’s useful idiots are. And that hypnotising them going on as we speak.
In my time at my employer I have changed title from Lecturer, to Research Fellow and now Assistant Professor. Only one of those changes involved a shift in salary grade. I think a lot is re-branding and because there is, as noted, an increasing division between teaching staff and research staff.
I disagree with dixiedean a little. Yes, being an excellent researcher doesn't automatically equate with being a good teacher and vice versa; they are different skills. However there is a push to ensure that teaching is research informed. Students, we are told, want to learn from those who are doing the research and that seems fair enough to me.
The key is training. My role is principally research, but I am strongly encouraged to build my teaching skills and gain suitable accreditation qualifications here. I am, for example, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Personally, I think the more common assumption that needs tackling is that Professors are best suited to do management/leadership tasks. While training can again help, I think ring-fencing management/leadership within departments to senior researchers is often unhelpful.
Ultimately the technology changes in teaching may well help researchers enhance their teaching by working with course designers to communicate their work. It is blended learning after all that will be the future of HE education I think.
I managed to get promoted in a university and keep the same job title. An oddity of the place where I was at the time and caused some confusion, as the same job title covered everything from jobs available to people with masters/first degrees and jobs that were two promotions below (full) professor. University equivalent of 'other ranks' I guess, i.e. the poor sods who do all the actual work while those above strategise and get the credit
Where I work now, you can't lead a module without doing a teaching qualification (you can become module leader without the qualification, but then have to enroll on the course at first opportunity). That's a good thing.
The mess of job titles does cause some confusion. When recruiting, we tend to look at salary to get a rough idea of our equivalent grade, but mostly of course at skills/experience. Salary can also be very misleading as some are on clinical pay scales - I reviewed a PhD post for a GP funded through NIHR and the salary for doing the PhD was over £50k, which would normally suggest someone with a lot more research experience.
Man U's new shirt sponsor a software company famous for having malware embedded in their product...
Awesome
Well we already have Premier League companies sponsored by betting companies run by the Triads.....
A posted an article 3-4 weeks ago where the journalist had a done a load of digging into some of the sponsorship deals for premier league clubs and there has also been a couple of articles on the athletic, dodgy doesn't start to describe some of the people they have taken money from.
In my time at my employer I have changed title from Lecturer, to Research Fellow and now Assistant Professor. Only one of those changes involved a shift in salary grade. I think a lot is re-branding and because there is, as noted, an increasing division between teaching staff and research staff.
I disagree with dixiedean a little. Yes, being an excellent researcher doesn't automatically equate with being a good teacher and vice versa; they are different skills. However there is a push to ensure that teaching is research informed. Students, we are told, want to learn from those who are doing the research and that seems fair enough to me.
The key is training. My role is principally research, but I am strongly encouraged to build my teaching skills and gain suitable accreditation qualifications here. I am, for example, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Personally, I think the more common assumption that needs tackling is that Professors are best suited to do management/leadership tasks. While training can again help, I think ring-fencing management/leadership within departments to senior researchers is often unhelpful.
Ultimately the technology changes in teaching may well help researchers enhance their teaching by working with course designers to communicate their work. It is blended learning after all that will be the future of HE education I think.
So research is done and something is published, that is so often similar and along same lines as everything else researched and on same lines as everything published on the subject. Is this lack of creative thinking in the research process?
A teacher would be more creative to engage and impart knowledge?
So when Government go to academics for help, they are going to researcher skill sets, not creative thinking skill sets, hence poor pieces of work, such as on planning for something?
Man U's new shirt sponsor a software company famous for having malware embedded in their product...
Awesome
Well we already have Premier League companies sponsored by betting companies run by the Triads.....
A posted an article 3-4 weeks ago where the journalist had a done a load of digging into some of the sponsorship deals for premier league clubs and there has also been a couple of articles on the athletic, dodgy doesn't start to describe some of the people they have taken money from.
Not just the Prem League either. Championship QPR had Football Index on their shirts!
Man U's new shirt sponsor a software company famous for having malware embedded in their product...
Awesome
Well we already have Premier League companies sponsored by betting companies run by the Triads.....
A posted an article 3-4 weeks ago where the journalist had a done a load of digging into some of the sponsorship deals for premier league clubs and there has also been a couple of articles on the athletic, dodgy doesn't start to describe some of the people they have taken money from.
Not just the Prem League either. Championship QPR had Football Index on their shirts!
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Sounds like an interesting Doctoral thesis! Apparently now folk refer to a "good" 1st. Apparently there are now good ones and poorer ones. Perhaps this will evolve into a 1:1 and a 1:2? The good old "Desmond", aka "The Drinkers Degree" will soon be a thing of the past
I do fear that by making these steps public whilst their is no contrition let alone reform among the Republican party, it does make it easier for a future coup attempt to succeed.
Man U's new shirt sponsor a software company famous for having malware embedded in their product...
Awesome
Well we already have Premier League companies sponsored by betting companies run by the Triads.....
A posted an article 3-4 weeks ago where the journalist had a done a load of digging into some of the sponsorship deals for premier league clubs and there has also been a couple of articles on the athletic, dodgy doesn't start to describe some of the people they have taken money from.
Not just the Prem League either. Championship QPR had Football Index on their shirts!
"A headteacher who appeared to blame 'a number of' Bangladeshi families for increasing the risk of Covid-19 infections at her primary school will take an early retirement - after parents campaigned to oust her.
Karen Todd said she felt 'totally let down' by those in the 'Bangladeshi community' in a letter sent to parents at Richard Avenue Primary School, Sunderland, in November last year.
The headteacher - who has been at the school for 23 years - suggested adults could have been working as taxi drivers or in restaurants while awaiting Covid-19 test results.
She claimed others were attending wedding ceremonies at home and hosting Mehndi nights 'against the law' in the letter - which sparked outrage from community leaders who launched a petition for her to be investigated.
Mrs Todd was absent from the school for five months before returning to her headteacher post in May.
Now - just two months later - Mrs Todd confirmed in a heartbreaking letter that she will be stepping down after taking an early retirement."
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Sounds like an interesting Doctoral thesis! Apparently now folk refer to a "good" 1st. Apparently there are now good ones and poorer ones. Perhaps this will evolve into a 1:1 and a 1:2? The good old "Desmond", aka "The Drinkers Degree" will soon be a thing of the past
Oxford has already reached 95% firsts and upper seconds.
Did anyone watch the England v. India T20 last night? Must say I was impressed by the batting, especially Wyatt and Mandhana. The bowling- not so much.
Australian city of Melbourne to be put on coronavirus lockdown - ABC
This is getting a bit tedious now. Not your posts, but the fact that Melbourne is going into another lockdown.
What do they mean by the L-word in Melbourne though? When Sydney got “locked down” a few weeks ago, it means a 2/3 limit on live sports crowds, which really isn’t much of a restriction.
Did anyone watch the England v. India T20 last night? Must say I was impressed by the batting, especially Wyatt and Mandhana. The bowling- not so much.
Watched quite a bit of women's cricket this year. As you say, batting often excellent and imaginative. Bowling tends to be slower than mens. The fielding varies a lot. Superb catch by one of the Indian ladies in the previous match.
Australian city of Melbourne to be put on coronavirus lockdown - ABC
This is getting a bit tedious now. Not your posts, but the fact that Melbourne is going into another lockdown.
What do they mean by the L-word in Melbourne though? When Sydney got “locked down” a few weeks ago, it means a 2/3 limit on live sports crowds, which really isn’t much of a restriction.
Though legal restrictions will soon be tighter in Australia than they are in the UK which is an interesting development.
One of the arguments made for strict border controls was it allowed the economy to be kept unlock inside the border. But post-vaccinations that's being reversed.
The usual incoherent ramble from Bozo. Good grief.
I’m surprised minders have let him say no one will be feeling pinch in their pocket next couple of years.
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
Boris has just told you the next election is in May 2023 - did you not pick that up.
What makes you say that?
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
The fact people won't be feeling poorer due to rises. If the new boundaries are in July 2023 then it's going to be October 2023 - the one thing we do know is that Boris (or any other leader) won't risk waiting until May 2024.
Australian city of Melbourne to be put on coronavirus lockdown - ABC
This is getting a bit tedious now. Not your posts, but the fact that Melbourne is going into another lockdown.
What do they mean by the L-word in Melbourne though? When Sydney got “locked down” a few weeks ago, it means a 2/3 limit on live sports crowds, which really isn’t much of a restriction.
The NSW government is also steadfastly refusing to define "essential work." Employers decide. You can guess the issues. Melbourne outbreak linked to an AFL game at the MCG.
The usual incoherent ramble from Bozo. Good grief.
I’m surprised minders have let him say no one will be feeling pinch in their pocket next couple of years.
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
Boris has just told you the next election is in May 2023 - did you not pick that up.
What makes you say that?
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
The fact people won't be feeling poorer due to rises. If the new boundaries are in July 2023 then it's going to be October 2023 - the one thing we do know is that Boris (or any other leader) won't risk waiting until May 2024.
What makes you think people will be feeling poorer in 2024?
We seem well set now for an economic boom and a good few years of wages rising and full employment.
The usual incoherent ramble from Bozo. Good grief.
I’m surprised minders have let him say no one will be feeling pinch in their pocket next couple of years.
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
Boris has just told you the next election is in May 2023 - did you not pick that up.
What makes you say that?
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
The fact people won't be feeling poorer due to rises. If the new boundaries are in July 2023 then it's going to be October 2023 - the one thing we do know is that Boris (or any other leader) won't risk waiting until May 2024.
What makes you think people will be feeling poorer in 2024?
We seem well set now for an economic boom and a good few years of wages rising and full employment.
Rising inflation is looming. Not the small amount we have now
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Sounds like an interesting Doctoral thesis! Apparently now folk refer to a "good" 1st. Apparently there are now good ones and poorer ones. Perhaps this will evolve into a 1:1 and a 1:2? The good old "Desmond", aka "The Drinkers Degree" will soon be a thing of the past
Oxford has already reached 95% firsts and upper seconds.
It is only partly inflation, though. I am told by those who were teaching undergraduates over the time when fees were introduced that student laziness levels absolutely plummeted when they started actually paying for it.
Australian city of Melbourne to be put on coronavirus lockdown - ABC
This is getting a bit tedious now. Not your posts, but the fact that Melbourne is going into another lockdown.
What do they mean by the L-word in Melbourne though? When Sydney got “locked down” a few weeks ago, it means a 2/3 limit on live sports crowds, which really isn’t much of a restriction.
Though legal restrictions will soon be tighter in Australia than they are in the UK which is an interesting development.
One of the arguments made for strict border controls was it allowed the economy to be kept unlock inside the border. But post-vaccinations that's being reversed.
In terms of the economics, the Australian approach has worked well, with the domestic economy continuing as normal for the past 18 months, bar a few short periods of restrictions in response to cases.
It’s a nightmare if you’re wanting to travel in or out though, with compulsory hotel quarantine and no exceptions. Plenty of unemployed Aussies couch surfing in my part of the world, they can’t afford to go home. Others have missed funerals and weddings.
They’ve been way too complacent on vaccines though, and there’s some serious anti-vax campaigning going on there.
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Sounds like an interesting Doctoral thesis! Apparently now folk refer to a "good" 1st. Apparently there are now good ones and poorer ones. Perhaps this will evolve into a 1:1 and a 1:2? The good old "Desmond", aka "The Drinkers Degree" will soon be a thing of the past
Oxford has already reached 95% firsts and upper seconds.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Levelling up has been tried before in the 1960s, when the government was concerned that the West Midlands was becoming too prosperous compared to the rest of the country. It was a total disaster on that occasion, which ended up making the West Midlands an economic disaster zone 15 years later.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
Dominic Cummings agrees with you. Guess who the ‘Clown Prince of shit pundits’ is.
“When even the Clown Prince of shit pundits doesn't know what dictation he's supposed to be taking, you know your slogan, speech & execution are really really bad”
No surprise there as Johnson is a disingenuous racist fat fornicator - i.e. a c*nt!
I love Johnson
Dr IshmaelZ MA Oxon MA Exon PhD
"MA Oxon..." please.
Why not? If you’re offered a free (or nearly free) upgrade take it.
Ugh, it's just a fake title. I have one too but I would never put it on my CV.
1. It winds people up into paroxysms of fury 2. I feel that having a proper one from a proper university retrospectively validates it 3. It is a sign of high intelligence, because it says that at 17 you were bright enough to choose a university where you get an M for the price of a B.
I always felt it devalues a genuine M and those who work hard for a M.
Oxbridge postgrads on Masters courses used to complain they only got a BSc (so they'd have an MA for their first degree and a BSc for their second, which few people recognised). These days, it is quite hard to get a 3-year bachelor degree, especially in the sciences, as they've gone to 4-year courses for MPhys or MCompSci or whatever. Chemistry at Oxford always was a 4-year course but now for an MChem rather than a BA. One celebrity example that has just popped into my head is Dudley Moore MA BMus, where the BMus is a higher degree and the MA isn't.
The Oxford DPhil is going out of fashion, I gather, as its holders discover no-one knows what it means, so they put PhD instead.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
Most Universities will dish out their PhD if you've got one from elsewhere and start working at a that University.
The latests Americanism is the granting of the title of "Professor" to anyone doing teaching....
Ah yes, professors, associate professors and so on. And increasingly these days, much of the teaching is delegated to specialist lecturers.
Given grade inflation etc, around 2050, everyone at the age of 16 will automatically become Doktor Professor.
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Sounds like an interesting Doctoral thesis! Apparently now folk refer to a "good" 1st. Apparently there are now good ones and poorer ones. Perhaps this will evolve into a 1:1 and a 1:2? The good old "Desmond", aka "The Drinkers Degree" will soon be a thing of the past
Oxford has already reached 95% firsts and upper seconds.
It is only partly inflation, though. I am told by those who were teaching undergraduates over the time when fees were introduced that student laziness levels absolutely plummeted when they started actually paying for it.
And also study techniques are better. Every student will be using active recall and spaced repetition to commit facts to memory. Looking something up now takes a few mouseclicks rather than two hours in the library (and half an hour just to get to the library). Don't understand a new concept? Check Wikipedia, online lectures from other universties, youtube and so on, or just send a plea for help to your fellow students' Whatsapp group.
The usual incoherent ramble from Bozo. Good grief.
I’m surprised minders have let him say no one will be feeling pinch in their pocket next couple of years.
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
Boris has just told you the next election is in May 2023 - did you not pick that up.
What makes you say that?
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
The fact people won't be feeling poorer due to rises. If the new boundaries are in July 2023 then it's going to be October 2023 - the one thing we do know is that Boris (or any other leader) won't risk waiting until May 2024.
What makes you think people will be feeling poorer in 2024?
We seem well set now for an economic boom and a good few years of wages rising and full employment.
I don't - but you don't leave an election to the last second because "events, dear boy, events".
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
The usual incoherent ramble from Bozo. Good grief.
I’m surprised minders have let him say no one will be feeling pinch in their pocket next couple of years.
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
Boris has just told you the next election is in May 2023 - did you not pick that up.
What makes you say that?
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
The fact people won't be feeling poorer due to rises. If the new boundaries are in July 2023 then it's going to be October 2023 - the one thing we do know is that Boris (or any other leader) won't risk waiting until May 2024.
What makes you think people will be feeling poorer in 2024?
We seem well set now for an economic boom and a good few years of wages rising and full employment.
I don't - but you don't leave an election to the last second because "events, dear boy, events".
Oh absolutely, a summer or autumn 2023 election has always been most likely for the same reason there were elections in 83, 87, 01 and 05. Spring 2023 doesn't work because of the boundary review.
Did anyone watch the England v. India T20 last night? Must say I was impressed by the batting, especially Wyatt and Mandhana. The bowling- not so much.
What channel was it on? I would have liked to watch it.
Boris is trash. His speech was bullshit and the pretence that he isn't robbing the south to bribe voters in the north is no longer credible. Honestly, it's time for the toy party to pull the trigger and get rid.
The question is will the Tory party have the courage to pull the plug on somebody who won a big election victory, or keep telling themselves but but he wins elections until he doesn't.....a bit like waiting too long to lockdown for COVID, they keep telling themselves but cases are still low.
Comments
Not everyone understands Cambridge and Oxford allow you to do this, and I don't want people thinking I have a genuine masters when I don't.
Stuart Rose was right.
ETA scooped by @Carnyx and two minutes.
Also given that lorries spend hours on the road, exactly how long will this downtime be..
You'd still need physical breaks, of couse. But not the x hours required by law between driving stints.
Would automated pallet vans be cheaper than manned lorries?
Driver should get paid for being in the vehicle (do they get paid on legal breaks now? I assume so, but maybe I'm wrong?).
What it would enable is using the lorry more. You could potentially run a haulage business with the same number of drivers working the same number of hours, but fewer lorries, because while the drivers get the same amount of non-driving time the lorries get less.
(Whether that actually saves a lot is a good question - if you use the lorries more they last less time, but same miles presumably.. So over 20 years maybe you end up buying as many lorries? But if you can get from A to B more quickly that opens up more possibilities particularly for perishable goods, possible competition with other modes)
Anyway, I was just disagreeing with the idea that there could be no savings fom automated driving on particular road types. You could also, of course, have different drivers at each end and no one in the cab for the automated part, which could work for repetitive haulage with well defined start and end points. All of which of course relies on fully automated driving anywhere, which - like eek, I don't see any time soon, particularly for large vehicles with no one present at all.
Speaking of which, Oxbridge used to, and maybe still does, dish out free PhDs as well, if you'd got one from the other place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/15/kremlin-papers-appear-to-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house
Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.
The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.
They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.
Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature....
I have encountered the Christ Church, Oxford, title 'Student' for a category of Fellow. On checking, they stull use it - with the happy result that there are Ordinary, Emeritus and Honorary Students, and yet the College website also has a section for 'current students' aka undergrads.
Now that's something to confuse a CV.
Facebook Users Said No to Tracking. Now Advertisers are Panicking
People give iOS apps permission to track their behavior just 25% of the time
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-14/facebook-fb-advertisers-impacted-by-apple-aapl-privacy-ios-14-changes
Very few are suited to both.
If you are a lecturer in a leafy University town, you won't be able to afford to buy a house on a lecturer's salary.
So, the University has to promote you to a Professor quickly ... otherwise you will just leave and do something else.
Hence, you end up with Departments that are 100 per cent Professors.
In fact, in some leafy University towns, the new Professors still can't afford a house (though the older ones bought their houses 20 years ago and are sitting on massive gains)
Anyone who thinks I am joking should take a look at the increasing rates of 2:1 and 1st in universities. The day when everyone gets a first is not especially far away.
Janine Davis: Yes.
Sheldon: You people are sick.
A professor I know at a Russell Group university setup a remedial maths course for incoming students. Who couldn't differentiate and integrate comfortably. Despite having A at A level....
I disagree with dixiedean a little. Yes, being an excellent researcher doesn't automatically equate with being a good teacher and vice versa; they are different skills. However there is a push to ensure that teaching is research informed. Students, we are told, want to learn from those who are doing the research and that seems fair enough to me.
The key is training. My role is principally research, but I am strongly encouraged to build my teaching skills and gain suitable accreditation qualifications here. I am, for example, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Personally, I think the more common assumption that needs tackling is that Professors are best suited to do management/leadership tasks. While training can again help, I think ring-fencing management/leadership within departments to senior researchers is often unhelpful.
Ultimately the technology changes in teaching may well help researchers enhance their teaching by working with course designers to communicate their work. It is blended learning after all that will be the future of HE education I think.
Although still waiting my copy.
(I am beginning to despise the word 'Gigafactory', btw)
Even the most mundane app tries to collect an awful lot information on me.
Feels empowering to say no to them.
http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm
If a Gigafactory is too small, you'll end up needing a Tigafactory.
Just don't send your TIGgers to Nando's.
All the conspiracy theory placards held up by Trump supporters come to them from Russian bots?
It doesn’t need a leak, we already know who the Kremlin’s useful idiots are. And that hypnotising them going on as we speak.
https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/best-in-leeds/whats-on-news/dominos-defends-insulting-pizza-topping-21050354
Where I work now, you can't lead a module without doing a teaching qualification (you can become module leader without the qualification, but then have to enroll on the course at first opportunity). That's a good thing.
The mess of job titles does cause some confusion. When recruiting, we tend to look at salary to get a rough idea of our equivalent grade, but mostly of course at skills/experience. Salary can also be very misleading as some are on clinical pay scales - I reviewed a PhD post for a GP funded through NIHR and the salary for doing the PhD was over £50k, which would normally suggest someone with a lot more research experience.
A posted an article 3-4 weeks ago where the journalist had a done a load of digging into some of the sponsorship deals for premier league clubs and there has also been a couple of articles on the athletic, dodgy doesn't start to describe some of the people they have taken money from.
A teacher would be more creative to engage and impart knowledge?
So when Government go to academics for help, they are going to researcher skill sets, not creative thinking skill sets, hence poor pieces of work, such as on planning for something?
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/14/politics/donald-trump-election-coup-new-book-excerpt/index.html
In the years leading up to next election people are going to feel pinch in the housekeeping pot, why make big promise they won’t be?
NEW: Indonesia reports 56,757 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 982 new deaths
Malaysia reports 13,215 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 110 new deaths
Far East getting seriously hit by covid now.
Karen Todd said she felt 'totally let down' by those in the 'Bangladeshi community' in a letter sent to parents at Richard Avenue Primary School, Sunderland, in November last year.
The headteacher - who has been at the school for 23 years - suggested adults could have been working as taxi drivers or in restaurants while awaiting Covid-19 test results.
She claimed others were attending wedding ceremonies at home and hosting Mehndi nights 'against the law' in the letter - which sparked outrage from community leaders who launched a petition for her to be investigated.
Mrs Todd was absent from the school for five months before returning to her headteacher post in May.
Now - just two months later - Mrs Todd confirmed in a heartbreaking letter that she will be stepping down after taking an early retirement."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9790917/Headteacher-appeared-blame-Bangladeshi-families-rising-Covid-cases-retire.html
This is a nice touch, though:
The pizza has a tartare and tomato sauce base
July or August 2023 makes much more sense since the new boundaries will be in place by then.
One of the arguments made for strict border controls was it allowed the economy to be kept unlock inside the border. But post-vaccinations that's being reversed.
Melbourne outbreak linked to an AFL game at the MCG.
We seem well set now for an economic boom and a good few years of wages rising and full employment.
It’s a nightmare if you’re wanting to travel in or out though, with compulsory hotel quarantine and no exceptions. Plenty of unemployed Aussies couch surfing in my part of the world, they can’t afford to go home. Others have missed funerals and weddings.
They’ve been way too complacent on vaccines though, and there’s some serious anti-vax campaigning going on there.
https://twitter.com/dominic2306/status/1415633761337757699
“When even the Clown Prince of shit pundits doesn't know what dictation he's supposed to be taking, you know your slogan, speech & execution are really really bad”