West Lancs looks like a LAB hold on small turnout – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
...
Teehee. Not a terrible idea.moonshine said:
Now that would be amusing. Time Magazine Man of the Year, Protector of Democracy Putin.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Would agree with much of that.moonshine said:Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...0 -
Not the Deng thing to mention it though.Malmesbury said:
That line from PJ OP'Rourke about travelling through China in the early days of their capitalist thing.... "Everywhere I looked, the same bland visage stared down at me from billboards. Some say he was a military genius. Some say he killed millions. Yes, it was Col. Sanders."paulyork64 said:
I think Colonel Sanders could do better than his current officers.RochdalePioneers said:
Adverts for KFC and Burger King.Dynamo said:https://spbtv.online/channels/rossiia_1.html
^ Watch Putin here.
The evil, imperialist west...0 -
That's true, but it should also be said that the DC-X was very much a fringe NASA project at all times - a little like Ingenuity versus Perseverance. DC-X only went ahead because a few high-profile outsiders - including the late, great Jerry Pournelle - went great guns for it with senior politicians. NASA was never sold on the concept.Malmesbury said:
The way that the DC-X program was carefully killed off is a master class in government bullshit.JosiasJessop said:
" "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal."RochdalePioneers said:
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.Malmesbury said:
They are related. A small example.Gardenwalker said:
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.Malmesbury said:
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".Richard_Nabavi said:
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).rcs1000 said:
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
(sighs theatrically)
Vertical landing was not seen as being impossible. The DCX-Clipper was testing vertical landing 15 years earlier. Sadly NASA did not go ahead with the DC-Y or DC-1. But it very much proved vertically landing a large rocket was possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
This is the problem with Musk: there's so much b/s about him that people actually believe.
The original plan was the DC-Y - build a somewhat bigger but otherwise very similar vehicle to the DC-X. This would demonstrate flight weight etc and, might, just, maybe, reach orbit. With no payload. This would, however, virtually guarantee that the follow on Delta Clipper - the full sized, operational vehicle would work.
This represented problems for various special interests. One part of NASA hated the fact that DC program didn't have wings. Another hated that it wasn't the Shuttle (shuttle operations, mainly). The exiting launch providers hated the idea that they would be put out of business.
So NASA redesigned the program. Instead of the "boring" DC-Y, the new X-33 project would be really exciting. Including a dozen different untried technologies. If one of them failed, the whole program would fail. It would take off vertically, but land like a plane. Which was stupid, but NASA liked this. Lockheed got the job, because they claimed to have done all kinds of black project work in the area.
A chunk of the technology failed, the project was never finished. Lockheed spent all the money, then went back to launching government satellites on the rockets made by their rocketry division. Which cost more, but made more profit for Lockheed. NASA went back to flying the shuttle, happy that they'd proved that building a better system was impossible.
No progress. This made everyone very happy.
EDIT: The F9 first stage is the size of a fair sized building. The DC-X was (deliberately) quite small. The other big difference was/is the hover slam.
However my point remains: everyone knew vertical landing was possible, because the DC-X had shown it was possible (and with a large range of other manoeuvres as well). I could also add that vertical landing was not SpaceX's first hope - their initial hopes were to use parachutes.0 -
So did Adolf, he was always late as it built up the tension and the expectation.FrankBooth said:Don't forget that Putin is a sadist and enjoys keeping people waiting.
(Never forgot that episode on the 'World at War')0 -
Even if it was 9, he's running late,0
-
Compared with the old Politburo, Putin is a young whippersnapper, lacking the smell of vodka and formalin.
Possibly that's his danger too.1 -
Yes but this looks weak and chaotic, the opposite of what you want when asking your entire nation to go to all out war for youFrankBooth said:Don't forget that Putin is a sadist and enjoys keeping people waiting.
0 -
I could never get into Victoria itself. And Victoria 2 is unplayable without all the DLC (really).BartholomewRoberts said:
Ooh forgot that, I loved the original Victoria and Vicky 2 but haven't played either in many years now. Looking forward to Vic 3.TheValiant said:
Whisper it quietly, but I've taken a real shine to Victoria 2 in the last few years.BartholomewRoberts said:
LOL if Paradox gets the scoop first.TheValiant said:I've got here open, Alternative History.com open and I'm wondering whether Paradox forums (Hearts of Iron you see) Off Topic forum will say anything else different about Putin......
I'm more of a Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis fan but I could understand HoI fans being interested in the madness what's going on in Russia today.
Nearly as good as Hearts of Iron 2...........
(Which I'm still playing by the way, just like it says on my sig):
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/members/thevaliant.19341/
But with them, and add the various mods out there and Vicky 2 is really good. Hard... very hard (I always play on Very Easy.... I'm not very good) but a lot of fun can be had.
The 'easiest' country is Prussia by far. Form Germany, bash the French, Austrians and Russia.... what's not to like?!1 -
'You made him look like a bloody idiot, sir,' said Berrigan. 'But that ain't difficult, on account of the fact that he is a bloody idiot.'Leon said:
Yes but this looks weak and chaotic, the opposite of what you want when asking your entire nation to go to all out war for youFrankBooth said:Don't forget that Putin is a sadist and enjoys keeping people waiting.
0 -
Now that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of. He could argue that it legitimised the 2014 referendum in Crimea, by showing that Russia could also lose those votes.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Would agree with much of that.moonshine said:Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...1 -
KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning0
-
(Sighs). No, they have not. They really have not. SpaceX spent a vast amount of money perfecting landing (far more than the initial rocket development cost), and unless you can get a high flight cadence, you will never get your money back. SpaceX took a 'build it and they will come' approach; and when they did not come in enough numbers, they built Starlink for their own internal market...Malmesbury said:
Despite the technology being un-patented, the existing launch companies/organisations seem to have adopted the policy of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA.JosiasJessop said:
" "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal."RochdalePioneers said:
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.Malmesbury said:
They are related. A small example.Gardenwalker said:
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.Malmesbury said:
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".Richard_Nabavi said:
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).rcs1000 said:
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
(sighs theatrically)
Vertical landing was not seen as being impossible. The DCX-Clipper was testing vertical landing 15 years earlier. Sadly NASA did not go ahead with the DC-Y or DC-1. But it very much proved vertically landing a large rocket was possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
This is the problem with Musk: there's so much b/s about him that people actually believe.
It's beyond the digital camera and Kodak thing now. It's way, way more ridiculous.
What are the purposes of Ariane 6, and how does spending three or five times the development cost getting it reusable help those purposes? ESA are looking into it, and making baby steps, but it's really not economic for the launch market as it is, and Europe's internal launches.0 -
1984 Soviet joke:CD13 said:Compared with the old Politburo, Putin is a young whippersnapper, lacking the smell of vodka and formalin.
Possibly that's his danger too.
What support does Gorbachev have in the Kremlin?
None - he can walk unaided.
Other good ones:
What has four legs and forty teeth? A crocodile!
What has forty legs and four teeth? The Politburo.
What is the difference between Tsarism and Communism? Under Tsarism power goes from father to son. Under Communism it goes from grandfather to grandfather.
(Oddly, that could apply to us too!)4 -
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
0 -
But it would be to admit he was both lying about the people of those areas wanting to be united with Russia, andmake pointless all the deaths to 'liberate' people who did not want to be liberated.LostPassword said:
Now that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of. He could argue that it legitimised the 2014 referendum in Crimea, by showing that Russia could also lose those votes.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Would agree with much of that.moonshine said:Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...
I fear it is escalation time for him, with a lot of 'I hope this scares the West' rhetoric, but if he were going to seek a way out, it feels like as a dictator the appropriate path is to just reverse direction and dare anyone to speak out.0 -
Liz seems to have given up on the Red Wall0
-
Maybe it is weak and chaotic. Perhaps there's an almighty row in the Kremlin over whether this is the right idea.Leon said:
Yes but this looks weak and chaotic, the opposite of what you want when asking your entire nation to go to all out war for youFrankBooth said:Don't forget that Putin is a sadist and enjoys keeping people waiting.
0 -
Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.4
-
Because his mum lived in Balmoral...Flatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
0 -
I quite like his gesture politics. Quite quick to learn how to do Youtube attention-seeking.moonshine said:
No doubt Denys Davydov will give a summary in his 10pm youtube update. Has quickly become my required bedtime viewing.Sandpit said:
If you have a Russian satellite receiver maybe, all the European and American platforms have delisted Russian channels.ydoethur said:
Can we watch this magnum opus in the UK or will you fill us in?Sandpit said:Putin fashionably late as usual. He should have been on TV 20 minutes ago, they’re struggling to fill time and have just gone to adverts.
I’ll do my best to offer a quick translation, if he eventually turns up.
0 -
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
0 -
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.0 -
I rest my case.IshmaelZ said:
What sort of complaint is "partisan," do you expect the left to look at a tory PM and say I'm Labour through and through like my parents were before me, but looking at the skills PM X brings to the table I am suspending hostilities?squareroot2 said:
Which is why it is wise to ignore most of the partisan bullshit, especially from the left that infects the site. The continual.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PMwooliedyed said:Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3
Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
And do you expect that effect to be more or less marked for X = Truss?
The woman is plainly mad, doctrinaire, incompetent, inhuman and several thousand fathoms out of her depth. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to point at her and laugh.0 -
He wants to turn it into a Museum though. So clearly not devoted to living in the gaff.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
0 -
Would be amusing if she's left them to someone unexpected - the League Against Cruel Sports, Donald Trump to build some more golf courses...ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.2 -
Could have been transferred ante mortem (and, at least in theory but in common practice for landowners I believe, also to a private family trust). IN that case the only issue would be to pay the IHT on it.ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.0 -
The latter would be a below par action.NickPalmer said:
Would be amusing if she's left them to someone unexpected - the League Against Cruel Sports, Donald Trump to build some more golf courses...ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.2 -
True, although the will remains secret for 90 years.ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.0 -
What's the betting that the eventual menu of neo-Thatcherite dash for growth policies will also ultimately encompass massive new bungs for pensioners and not a single house to be constructed anywhere south of Derby?CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Liz seems to have given up on the Red Wall
1 -
Well, you are using SAP. So, it's your own fault really.Richard_Nabavi said:Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.
3 -
Well they all have their favouritesLuckyguy1983 said:
He wants to turn it into a Museum though. So clearly not devoted to living in the gaff.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
0 -
Still no Putin?0
-
Well, yes, but maybe not always in the big draughty old house unless she had visitors.IshmaelZ said:
Because his mum lived in Balmoral...Flatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Birkhall is more private as the fenced gardens are quite big and the entrance is not on a public road. It is, however, a short landrover track from the Balmoral estate itself.0 -
They could have been, but I don't believe they were.Carnyx said:
Could have been transferred ante mortem (and, at least in theory but in common practice for landowners I believe, also to a private family trust). IN that case the only issue would be to pay the IHT on it.ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.
That raises another question. What parts of the Queen's estate would be eligible for IHT?0 -
Believe in current context you must mean ABOVE par. As is Triple Quadruple Bogey?ydoethur said:
The latter would be a below par action.NickPalmer said:
Would be amusing if she's left them to someone unexpected - the League Against Cruel Sports, Donald Trump to build some more golf courses...ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.0 -
That is my case, is what English lawyers say.squareroot2 said:
I rest my case.IshmaelZ said:
What sort of complaint is "partisan," do you expect the left to look at a tory PM and say I'm Labour through and through like my parents were before me, but looking at the skills PM X brings to the table I am suspending hostilities?squareroot2 said:
Which is why it is wise to ignore most of the partisan bullshit, especially from the left that infects the site. The continual.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Reading this forum if is impossible for Truss to be ahead of Starmer by 40%/36% as best PMwooliedyed said:Redfield has Starmer getting a big boost to plus 4 job approval, Truss at plus 3
Truss 4 points ahead best PM 40 36
doom and gloom from the thread headers doesn't help either.
And do you expect that effect to be more or less marked for X = Truss?
The woman is plainly mad, doctrinaire, incompetent, inhuman and several thousand fathoms out of her depth. It is the duty of every right thinking citizen to point at her and laugh.
If you think I am partisan, I don't know which party you mean. I have only once not voted tory, 1979-date.
0 -
That's a lot of balls.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Believe in current context you must mean ABOVE par. As is Triple Quadruple Bogey?ydoethur said:
The latter would be a below par action.NickPalmer said:
Would be amusing if she's left them to someone unexpected - the League Against Cruel Sports, Donald Trump to build some more golf courses...ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.0 -
Curioser and curioser
#Putin address has been moved back another 35 minutes or so. Address now scheduled to be aired at 10PM Moscow Time Standard. Don’t expect anything today, third time it has been pushed back. #Russia #Ukraine #Donbass..
https://twitter.com/resistduck/status/1572290648073506816?s=21&t=Z2fXj0Ujt4aXj--4yjIAKQ
0 -
Let's hope the reverse applies too.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Liz seems to have given up on the Red Wall
1 -
The country clearly was not as over the top about Queen as the media or PB. Not close to being the most watched event in history0
-
Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.3
-
I think we should take a leaf out of Slartibartfast's book and rename Putin Dentarthurdent.0
-
SAP ROFL they’re a bunch of con artistsRichard_Nabavi said:Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.
0 -
Russian state TV wanted Putin to assassinate almost every single world leader on Monday.
They have totally lost the plot.0 -
Nah, Macromedia Director /Shockwave. I ported V6 to a certain computer OS, and the code was... interesting for what was supposed to be a professional product. Holes, overflows and bugs everywhere.Richard_Nabavi said:Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.
A little anecdote: at the time (96/7), Marcomedia was one of the top ?ten? websites in the world, partly due to the downloads of Shockwave and Flash (*). We had some top bods over from Macromedia in the US to see our port. My manager entered their website 'Macromedia.com' on an on-screen keyboard, but missed the last 'a' off the domain. He loaded 'Macromedi.com', which loaded a porn site.
Because the macromedia.com site was so popular, someone had cleverly bought domains that were common misspellings of it. The Macromedia people apparently had no idea about this, and were suddenly rather worried..
(*) Yes, they became responsible for that horridness as well.
1 -
Delaying to 10pm now apparently.0
-
So the Tax Justice Network, which issued a report claiming a windfall tax proposal at 95% would yield 44 billion GBP and this has been seized on by journalists and the usual suspects on Twitter basically cocked up and forgot this was already taxed at 65% and it would only yield 12.5 billion !!
They have since retracted. Will the journalists quoting this shoddy work do the same.
https://twitter.com/danneidle/status/1572274763682258944?s=21&t=YuD7VwVcwJY4JFFoLJSZxQ1 -
NASA hated the program from the start - it was an SDI project, until Clinton took over, and pushed the program to NASA.JosiasJessop said:
That's true, but it should also be said that the DC-X was very much a fringe NASA project at all times - a little like Ingenuity versus Perseverance. DC-X only went ahead because a few high-profile outsiders - including the late, great Jerry Pournelle - went great guns for it with senior politicians. NASA was never sold on the concept.Malmesbury said:
The way that the DC-X program was carefully killed off is a master class in government bullshit.JosiasJessop said:
" "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal."RochdalePioneers said:
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.Malmesbury said:
They are related. A small example.Gardenwalker said:
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.Malmesbury said:
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".Richard_Nabavi said:
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).rcs1000 said:
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
(sighs theatrically)
Vertical landing was not seen as being impossible. The DCX-Clipper was testing vertical landing 15 years earlier. Sadly NASA did not go ahead with the DC-Y or DC-1. But it very much proved vertically landing a large rocket was possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
This is the problem with Musk: there's so much b/s about him that people actually believe.
The original plan was the DC-Y - build a somewhat bigger but otherwise very similar vehicle to the DC-X. This would demonstrate flight weight etc and, might, just, maybe, reach orbit. With no payload. This would, however, virtually guarantee that the follow on Delta Clipper - the full sized, operational vehicle would work.
This represented problems for various special interests. One part of NASA hated the fact that DC program didn't have wings. Another hated that it wasn't the Shuttle (shuttle operations, mainly). The exiting launch providers hated the idea that they would be put out of business.
So NASA redesigned the program. Instead of the "boring" DC-Y, the new X-33 project would be really exciting. Including a dozen different untried technologies. If one of them failed, the whole program would fail. It would take off vertically, but land like a plane. Which was stupid, but NASA liked this. Lockheed got the job, because they claimed to have done all kinds of black project work in the area.
A chunk of the technology failed, the project was never finished. Lockheed spent all the money, then went back to launching government satellites on the rockets made by their rocketry division. Which cost more, but made more profit for Lockheed. NASA went back to flying the shuttle, happy that they'd proved that building a better system was impossible.
No progress. This made everyone very happy.
EDIT: The F9 first stage is the size of a fair sized building. The DC-X was (deliberately) quite small. The other big difference was/is the hover slam.
However my point remains: everyone knew vertical landing was possible, because the DC-X had shown it was possible (and with a large range of other manoeuvres as well). I could also add that vertical landing was not SpaceX's first hope - their initial hopes were to use parachutes.
Gary Hudson can tell you some fun stories about the NASA attitude to DC-X, if you like. Senior managers were quite clear they wanted it to fail. To the point that some said the eventual destruction of the DC-X was convenient.
Right after DC-X started flying, the feather merchants said that obviously they really meant that a full sized, flight weight stage couldn't land. That the DC-X was an overweight flying bedstead type deal.
Vertical landing was the eventual goal of SpaceX - the parachutes were an attempt at reducing the amount of fuel required for boost back and landing. Fairly simple maths shows that a parachute to reduce the descent of an F9 stage to a survivable landing would end up weighing more than the margin for recovery equipment. When the issues about opening shock and high speed chute deployment became clear, the group of engineers within SpaceX arguing for the pure rocket approach won.
As with nearly everything that Elon Musks companies have done, it's not about some mystical technology breakthrough. It's about getting things to market. Plenty of people were building electric cars, some of fair performance. As concepts, and one off conversions for those with $250K.
Sure, everyone had a nice drawing of vertical landing for rocket stages. Poor old Gary Hudson has them by the steamer trunk. Also a picture of the DC-X on their wall. Yet, somehow, no-one built one.1 -
I did a bit of an odd AAR in the original Vicky Forum where I played the United Kingdom as Queen Victoria Branson and prevented the industrial revolution happening outside the UK. Did strategic strikes against parts of the world to monopolise goods so that I was the only nation able to make Machine Parts etcTheValiant said:
I could never get into Victoria itself. And Victoria 2 is unplayable without all the DLC (really).BartholomewRoberts said:
Ooh forgot that, I loved the original Victoria and Vicky 2 but haven't played either in many years now. Looking forward to Vic 3.TheValiant said:
Whisper it quietly, but I've taken a real shine to Victoria 2 in the last few years.BartholomewRoberts said:
LOL if Paradox gets the scoop first.TheValiant said:I've got here open, Alternative History.com open and I'm wondering whether Paradox forums (Hearts of Iron you see) Off Topic forum will say anything else different about Putin......
I'm more of a Crusader Kings/Europa Universalis fan but I could understand HoI fans being interested in the madness what's going on in Russia today.
Nearly as good as Hearts of Iron 2...........
(Which I'm still playing by the way, just like it says on my sig):
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/members/thevaliant.19341/
But with them, and add the various mods out there and Vicky 2 is really good. Hard... very hard (I always play on Very Easy.... I'm not very good) but a lot of fun can be had.
The 'easiest' country is Prussia by far. Form Germany, bash the French, Austrians and Russia.... what's not to like?!
Monopolised dye first, then sulfur so that other countries had no access to resources to fight or develop.1 -
Will the last man of military age leaving Russia please turn out the light.TimS said:Delaying to 10pm now apparently.
0 -
Well in that case, there’s definitely no chance of my live translator helping out I’m afraid. One must abed.Leon said:Curioser and curioser
#Putin address has been moved back another 35 minutes or so. Address now scheduled to be aired at 10PM Moscow Time Standard. Don’t expect anything today, third time it has been pushed back. #Russia #Ukraine #Donbass..
https://twitter.com/resistduck/status/1572290648073506816?s=21&t=Z2fXj0Ujt4aXj--4yjIAKQ0 -
Quite flattering that they again described Britain as the root of all evil.rottenborough said:Russian state TV wanted Putin to assassinate almost every single world leader on Monday.
They have totally lost the plot.0 -
When you prop your regime up with insane propaganda it can rather run away from you. Promote craziness and don't be surprised if some of the crazies believe it.rottenborough said:Russian state TV wanted Putin to assassinate almost every single world leader on Monday.
They have totally lost the plot.0 -
The Times ran a story that some in the industry would prefer a windfall tax than to get ensnared in gas contracts with government.Taz said:So the Tax Justice Network, which issued a report claiming a windfall tax proposal at 95% would yield 44 billion GBP and this has been seized on by journalists and the usual suspects on Twitter basically cocked up and forgot this was already taxed at 65% and it would only yield 12.5 billion !!
They have since retracted. Will the journalists quoting this shoddy work do the same.
https://twitter.com/danneidle/status/1572274763682258944?s=21&t=YuD7VwVcwJY4JFFoLJSZxQ
0 -
'Look,' says Shoygu, gesturing at the corpse. 'we did what we had to do. I'm proud I did it. But now one of you mofos has to take over.TimS said:Delaying to 10pm now apparently.
Yes, somebody now has to be head of the FSB.'
At this moment, the President intervened. 'Wibble!' He said loudly.
Mishustin hesitates. 'Are you sure we shot the right one?' he asks.
Shoygu glares. 'Well, it's too late now. Even that twat of a newsreader will never believe both of them fell out of a window.'1 -
Not my fault, it's a multinational which insists on invoices being submitted using Ariba. I won't SAP-shame them by saying who it is, but in future I think we might make it a condition of the contract that we invoice by sending a PDF by email.rcs1000 said:
Well, you are using SAP. So, it's your own fault really.Richard_Nabavi said:Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.
More generally, I really, really HATE this modern trend for insisting on logging on to some godammed website to do business, either for purchasing or selling. It's incredibly time-wasting. In the old days, you got invoices through the post, you stuck them on a spike, and then you went through dealing with them. Now you have to log on to dozens of stupid websites, all different, just to see your invoices, guessing which ones might have raised an invoice. The websites tend to be badly designed, and often with ludicrous levels of security, quite out of proportion to any risk.2 -
The red wall should not go back to labour until labour can offer something more substantive than just taking it for granted and doing the bare minimum. This is what labour historically did to the red wall as it always voted labour.kinabalu said:
Let's hope the reverse applies too.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Liz seems to have given up on the Red Wall
1 -
If it goes to the king then there won't be IHT on it because the transfer is "sovereign to sovereign".Carnyx said:
Could have been transferred ante mortem (and, at least in theory but in common practice for landowners I believe, also to a private family trust). IN that case the only issue would be to pay the IHT on it.ydoethur said:
Well, we presume he does. Let's not forget Balmoral and Sandringham were owned by the Queen personally, not the Crown or the DoL. She could will them to somebody else, or the National Trust, if she chose.wooliedyed said:
He owns Balmoral now thoughFlatlander said:
Fair enough, I think. Though I though his hoose was next door (Birkhall)?wooliedyed said:KC3 in Balmoral for the week of royal mourning
Edit - which also presumably means it's currently awaiting probate.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen0 -
Certainly hope that her late Majesty's estate planners (as opposed to agents) have given due consideration to that most worthy of charitable endeavors, namely the PB Extraordinary Fund for the Uplift of Unfortunate Punters and Under-appreciated Psephologists.
We could even take turns house-sitting at Sandringham!
With some funds invested/diverted for purchase, maintenance, staffing, etc. of much-needed PB Bottle Bus!!1 -
Vladimir. Putin or Put out?
Waiting for Vladimir.1 -
Because it was not economic to do so.Malmesbury said:
NASA hated the program from the start - it was an SDI project, until Clinton took over, and pushed the program to NASA.JosiasJessop said:
That's true, but it should also be said that the DC-X was very much a fringe NASA project at all times - a little like Ingenuity versus Perseverance. DC-X only went ahead because a few high-profile outsiders - including the late, great Jerry Pournelle - went great guns for it with senior politicians. NASA was never sold on the concept.Malmesbury said:
The way that the DC-X program was carefully killed off is a master class in government bullshit.JosiasJessop said:
" "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal."RochdalePioneers said:
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.Malmesbury said:
They are related. A small example.Gardenwalker said:
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.Malmesbury said:
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".Richard_Nabavi said:
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).rcs1000 said:
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
(sighs theatrically)
Vertical landing was not seen as being impossible. The DCX-Clipper was testing vertical landing 15 years earlier. Sadly NASA did not go ahead with the DC-Y or DC-1. But it very much proved vertically landing a large rocket was possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
This is the problem with Musk: there's so much b/s about him that people actually believe.
The original plan was the DC-Y - build a somewhat bigger but otherwise very similar vehicle to the DC-X. This would demonstrate flight weight etc and, might, just, maybe, reach orbit. With no payload. This would, however, virtually guarantee that the follow on Delta Clipper - the full sized, operational vehicle would work.
This represented problems for various special interests. One part of NASA hated the fact that DC program didn't have wings. Another hated that it wasn't the Shuttle (shuttle operations, mainly). The exiting launch providers hated the idea that they would be put out of business.
So NASA redesigned the program. Instead of the "boring" DC-Y, the new X-33 project would be really exciting. Including a dozen different untried technologies. If one of them failed, the whole program would fail. It would take off vertically, but land like a plane. Which was stupid, but NASA liked this. Lockheed got the job, because they claimed to have done all kinds of black project work in the area.
A chunk of the technology failed, the project was never finished. Lockheed spent all the money, then went back to launching government satellites on the rockets made by their rocketry division. Which cost more, but made more profit for Lockheed. NASA went back to flying the shuttle, happy that they'd proved that building a better system was impossible.
No progress. This made everyone very happy.
EDIT: The F9 first stage is the size of a fair sized building. The DC-X was (deliberately) quite small. The other big difference was/is the hover slam.
However my point remains: everyone knew vertical landing was possible, because the DC-X had shown it was possible (and with a large range of other manoeuvres as well). I could also add that vertical landing was not SpaceX's first hope - their initial hopes were to use parachutes.
Gary Hudson can tell you some fun stories about the NASA attitude to DC-X, if you like. Senior managers were quite clear they wanted it to fail. To the point that some said the eventual destruction of the DC-X was convenient.
Right after DC-X started flying, the feather merchants said that obviously they really meant that a full sized, flight weight stage couldn't land. That the DC-X was an overweight flying bedstead type deal.
Vertical landing was the eventual goal of SpaceX - the parachutes were an attempt at reducing the amount of fuel required for boost back and landing. Fairly simple maths shows that a parachute to reduce the descent of an F9 stage to a survivable landing would end up weighing more than the margin for recovery equipment. When the issues about opening shock and high speed chute deployment became clear, the group of engineers within SpaceX arguing for the pure rocket approach won.
As with nearly everything that Elon Musks companies have done, it's not about some mystical technology breakthrough. It's about getting things to market. Plenty of people were building electric cars, some of fair performance. As concepts, and one off conversions for those with $250K.
Sure, everyone had a nice drawing of vertical landing for rocket stages. Poor old Gary Hudson has them by the steamer trunk. Also a picture of the DC-X on their wall. Yet, somehow, no-one built one.
Heck, it probably wouldn't be economic for SpaceX if it were not for Starlink...0 -
Oh!
Shaun Walker
@shaunwalker7
·
2h
“Three Meduza sources close to the Kremlin underlined that Russia believes the ‘referenda’ will stop Ukraine advance as they ‘won’t risk attacking Russian territory’.
Sounds like another miscalculation from Kremlin with quite scary possible consequences
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7
0 -
Power blackouts are a non-trivial possibility if we carry on as before and would be a much more sure vote loser.MISTY said:
Yeah I bet gas rationing is real vote winner. What a missed opportunity.ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
Whereas suggesting those of us who are healthy and fit turn our heating down 2C would make everything much easier.1 -
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
1 -
Its slso not as simple as straightforward UNS anyway. Its been trending away from Labour since at least 2005 and therefore requires braking that trend before it reverses. Harder than swing from flat.Taz said:
The red wall should not go back to labour until labour can offer something more substantive than just taking it for granted and doing the bare minimum. This is what labour historically did to the red wall as it always voted labour.kinabalu said:
Let's hope the reverse applies too.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Liz seems to have given up on the Red Wall
0 -
I'm doing my bit by simply not turning the heating on at all.ydoethur said:
Power blackouts are a non-trivial possibility if we carry on as before and would be a much more sure vote loser.MISTY said:
Yeah I bet gas rationing is real vote winner. What a missed opportunity.ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
Whereas suggesting those of us who are healthy and fit turn our heating down 2C would make everything much easier.
Direct debit down to £80 per month.0 -
Yeh. Johnson has really got under their skin. Top trolling with those walkabouts in Kyiv.TimS said:
Quite flattering that they again described Britain as the root of all evil.rottenborough said:Russian state TV wanted Putin to assassinate almost every single world leader on Monday.
They have totally lost the plot.
1 -
Will they bother to make any red C-III-R letterboxes, other than an occasional ceremonial version?
The combination of the lack of individuals using mail and that the existing ones would still be standing after a nuclear explosion, means there can't be much demand for new ones any more.0 -
Anonymous Operations
@AnonOpsSE
·
12m
Chill you tits media, we aren't blocking Putin from having his shameless speech!
For now...0 -
Ukrainians have already attacked Crimea and actual Russian territory.rottenborough said:Oh!
Shaun Walker
@shaunwalker7
·
2h
“Three Meduza sources close to the Kremlin underlined that Russia believes the ‘referenda’ will stop Ukraine advance as they ‘won’t risk attacking Russian territory’.
Sounds like another miscalculation from Kremlin with quite scary possible consequences
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker71 -
He keeps Putin it off.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
5 -
If you can believe NASA's estimates of the costs of F9, then the development cost was paid off long ago, and the marginal cost of each launch is something like $16 million dollars. For 16 tons to LEO.JosiasJessop said:
(Sighs). No, they have not. They really have not. SpaceX spent a vast amount of money perfecting landing (far more than the initial rocket development cost), and unless you can get a high flight cadence, you will never get your money back. SpaceX took a 'build it and they will come' approach; and when they did not come in enough numbers, they built Starlink for their own internal market...Malmesbury said:
Despite the technology being un-patented, the existing launch companies/organisations seem to have adopted the policy of sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA.JosiasJessop said:
" "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal."RochdalePioneers said:
Elon Musk is Hank Scorpio. A lunatic, but a brilliant lunatic. SpaceX is a revolution in launcher technology, making NASA look like idiots. Starlink is a creative solution to the genuine lack of fast internet across chunks of the globe. Tesla is leading edge car production - am genuinely smitten with my Model Y.Malmesbury said:
They are related. A small example.Gardenwalker said:
US seems highly regulated and quite dysfunctional.Malmesbury said:
Quite a few Americans in business, that I know, talk of the "The Land Of The Fee".Richard_Nabavi said:
Indeed, it's really odd that people think the US is a low-regulation economy. It's extremely bureaucratic (although it does vary between states).rcs1000 said:
As someone who has done business in the UK, France, the US and Switzerland, I can assure people that the two most regulatory heavy countries are the last two, while the UK has the fewest regulations.
You need a license to any kind of business. Usually multiple. When you tell them you can just open a barbers shop in the UK, the startled expressions - without a zoning permit, a permit from the licensing board for barbers.. is the UK an anarchy?
There does seem to be a dynamic where American business, when it is unregulated, really takes a country mile. Leading to hard regulation. Which then.....
But there is also an irrepressible entrepreneurial spirit that seems missing from the UK.
I am quite fascinated by this paradox.
A mad billionaire builds the largest rocket in history, in a swamp, in Texas. The glee with which he blows up prototypes. Or builds a giant constellation of satellites in LEO, to provide internet access.
The existing launch providers, who are a government created monopoly try and pay their pet politicians to stop this anarchy. Except parts of the government love the product. In desperation they try - building new rockets and hiring a competent CEO.
Meanwhile the existing ISPs take government money to extend their coverage in rural ares in the US. Where a patchwork of laws has made competing with the Thieves By Statute virtually impossible.
When the government has the temerity to ask why they haven't actually added any connections for the money, the companies in question regard that as impertinent.
This is America in microcosm....
What I love is the think a long way outside the box insanities. "why don't we just land and reuse all the stages" was impossible until it became normal. "why not build a big fat rocket out of stainless steel" is bonkers, to say nothing of "lets catch it when landing with giant robot arms called "mechazilla". Then we have "This is not a Flamethrower". The "Emission Control" stupidity on a Tesla. He is truly madly deeply insane.
(sighs theatrically)
Vertical landing was not seen as being impossible. The DCX-Clipper was testing vertical landing 15 years earlier. Sadly NASA did not go ahead with the DC-Y or DC-1. But it very much proved vertically landing a large rocket was possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
This is the problem with Musk: there's so much b/s about him that people actually believe.
It's beyond the digital camera and Kodak thing now. It's way, way more ridiculous.
What are the purposes of Ariane 6, and how does spending three or five times the development cost getting it reusable help those purposes? ESA are looking into it, and making baby steps, but it's really not economic for the launch market as it is, and Europe's internal launches.
I'd suggest you ask Rocket Lab how much they think a fully re-usable TSTO should cost to develop. Stephan Isreal was quite clear - he thinks he could do it, but his stakeholders don't want reduced costs at the expense of work share and a reusable vehicle wouldn't have the right work to share (such as solids).0 -
I can't be the only one shitting myself at what Putin is going to say.
Can he offer a ceasefire please?0 -
Because the more is consumed the greater the tax burden on future generations? It's obv great that you are cushioned from such considerations by the increasing value of your real estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
0 -
Are you saying that there was code in between the bugs?JosiasJessop said:
Nah, Macromedia Director /Shockwave. I ported V6 to a certain computer OS, and the code was... interesting for what was supposed to be a professional product. Holes, overflows and bugs everywhere.Richard_Nabavi said:Completely off all topics, I have a new and compelling candidate for The Worst Piece of Software Ever Written. It's something called Ariba by SAP, and it makes even the worst Microsoft applications look brilliant in comparison.
A little anecdote: at the time (96/7), Marcomedia was one of the top ?ten? websites in the world, partly due to the downloads of Shockwave and Flash (*). We had some top bods over from Macromedia in the US to see our port. My manager entered their website 'Macromedia.com' on an on-screen keyboard, but missed the last 'a' off the domain. He loaded 'Macromedi.com', which loaded a porn site.
Because the macromedia.com site was so popular, someone had cleverly bought domains that were common misspellings of it. The Macromedia people apparently had no idea about this, and were suddenly rather worried..
(*) Yes, they became responsible for that horridness as well.
Where was it?0 -
New rumour. No Vladimir tonight
And yet the speech was pre-recorded. So this is even murkier0 -
Did you see the Ukrainian MoD’s less diplomatic tweet?BartholomewRoberts said:
"By diplomatic means" means "we're telling you to leave, now leave".Nigelb said:
And said only a couple of days back that Ukraine would recover Crimea "by diplomatic means".rcs1000 said:
Zelensky offered - early in the war - some kind of independent status for Crimea.Nigelb said:
Russia sees no opportunity to end the war in Ukraine through diplomacy – press secretary of 🇷🇺president Dmitry PeskovTOPPING said:
Yes. That is the balancing act. But I tend to agree with @Leon even if he is doing a stopped clock thing.Nigelb said:
Oh, in those terms I don't disagree.TOPPING said:
I'm sure Russia could use munitions from everywhere but that wasn't my point. China didn't condemn Russia at the UN, did they? I don't think so. Neither did India IIRC. And I don't think India sent them any tanks either. The issue being "international isolation" isn't complete without a great deal more of the world's population. Because surely you're not seeing this through the prism of the Anglo-American axis only.Nigelb said:
Has China supplied a single artillery round to Russia ?TOPPING said:
I think many leaders have been isolated internationally. They need key allies not to desert them and they can brush the rest off. That is why the China relationship is so important. I think the people who support (or, more accurately, didn't condemn) him represent billions of people, don't they?Nigelb said:
Almost certainly, yes.Luckyguy1983 said:
Is it too much to hope that he might set an example and return Cyprus and the chunk he's taken of Syria to their rightful owners?Nigelb said:Erdoğan to Putin: Return Crimea to ‘rightful owners’
Turkish leader joins parade of leaders dealing blows to Putin.
https://www.politico.eu/article/return-crimea-turkey-president-erdogan-putin-russia/
I think you're rather missing the point. This isn't about moral authority (of which Erdogan possesses very little indeed) but about Putin's international isolation.
I think the relationship is likely to grow frostier still if the nuclear talk continues.
Hence the importance of the China relationship.
But it does seem that the relationship is getting significantly less friendly.
My point is that attempts to escalate beyond a certain point risk losing the acquiescence of such states.
It is difficult to see a route that doesn't involve escalation and perhaps, if not likely, tactical nuclear weapons.
Feels pretty weird writing that but I just don't see an off ramp.
Now....when Richard Sherriff said this morning (he has said it before) that we (the UK) should be on a war footing, spend a shitload more on defence, and invite Ukraine to join NATO, I see the size of any off ramp decrease rapidly. This is manifestly not to say "it's our fault" and I don't rate British army chiefs that highly at all, but I just don't see a great end to this. If both ex Dep SACEUR and @BartholomewRoberts are calling for Russia to give up Crimea, and invite Ukraine into NATO then the space for negotiation (always 100% for Ukraine to decide) diminishes somewhat.
Earlier, on September 19, he also rejected allegations that Russian forces committed war crimes in Kharkiv Oblast
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1572259343772295168
Honestly, it's quite hard to see a negotiated settlement which doesn't included security guarantees for Ukraine that are more or less equivalent to NATO membership - otherwise what incentive does Ukraine have to settle ?
What otherwise would prevent round three from Putin in a few years' time ?
It is hard to see where to compromise with a country committed to a war of aggression, and very evidently not bother by being seen to commit atrocities in the pursuit of that war.
Having said that, a negotiation over Crimea is entirely possible were Russia to pull out of Luhansk/Donbas.
There's clearly still some wiggle room there. Donetsk/Luhansk I think are unnegotiable, though.
Diplomatic means works best when you've got the military logistics necessary to back up your requests. Ukraine does, Russia doesn't.
Q: why did the chicken cross the road
A: because it was regrouping
😂2 -
Market forces work.IshmaelZ said:
Because the more is consumed the greater the tax burden on future generations? It's obv great that you are cushioned from such considerations by the increasing value of your real estate.BartholomewRoberts said:
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
Everyone I know is cutting gas use as much as possible already.
Government "campaigns" would do nothing that gas prices aren't already doing.0 -
Yes, if that's genuinely what they're thinking then it sounds like a desperate attempt to resurrect the 'frozen conflict' strategy.WillG said:
Ukrainians have already attacked Crimea and actual Russian territory.rottenborough said:Oh!
Shaun Walker
@shaunwalker7
·
2h
“Three Meduza sources close to the Kremlin underlined that Russia believes the ‘referenda’ will stop Ukraine advance as they ‘won’t risk attacking Russian territory’.
Sounds like another miscalculation from Kremlin with quite scary possible consequences
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker70 -
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
6 -
Because a surprising number of people still won’t have been paying attention - except perhaps to petrol prices, which went up and are now coming down again, so all good.BartholomewRoberts said:
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
A public information campaign is a cheap way to reduce demand, and to make people aware that bills will be higher than expected.0 -
So keep Putin the boot in.paulyork64 said:
He keeps Putin it off.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
1 -
Sixth floor window or seventh?RochdalePioneers said:
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
But we should all bear in mind that his replacement could be worse.
0 -
Hopefully he is not too close to any windows !RochdalePioneers said:
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
1 -
Do you think they may have opened the window to give him some fresh air?RochdalePioneers said:
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
2 -
Kerch bridge is falling down?RochdalePioneers said:
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
3 -
Anonymous Operations
@AnonOpsSE
·
1m
Its almost 10:00 PM in Moscow, everyone is heading to bed and Putler is missing his prime time...
At this point he is late for his funeral.0 -
If he did could the Ukrainians trust him ?Casino_Royale said:I can't be the only one shitting myself at what Putin is going to say.
Can he offer a ceasefire please?0 -
As we wait for Vlad, or not, the idea that Will Smith would not suffer for The Slap has proved to be delusional
“Apple has a Will Smith problem.
Mr. Smith is the star of “Emancipation,” a film set during the Civil War era that Apple envisioned as a surefire Oscar contender when it wrapped filming earlier this year. But that was before Mr. Smith strode onto the stage at the Academy Awards in March and slapped the comedian Chris Rock, who had made a joke about Mr. Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith.
Mr. Smith, who also won best actor that night, has since surrendered his membership in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and has been banned from attending any Academy-related events, including the Oscar telecast, for the next decade.
Now Apple finds itself left with a $120 million unreleased awards-style movie featuring a star no longer welcome at the biggest award show of them all, and a big question: Can the film, even if it succeeds artistically, overcome the baggage that now accompanies Mr. Smith?”
NYT - ££0 -
How firm was the announcement that an address was coming - official, or Ukrainian spin?Leon said:New rumour. No Vladimir tonight
And yet the speech was pre-recorded. So this is even murkier0 -
not a joke ever made before !!Taz said:
Hopefully he is not too close to any windows !RochdalePioneers said:
Doctors are monitoring his health and he is comfortable.rcs1000 said:Still no Putin?
1 -
Nope.Taz said:
If he did could the Ukrainians trust him ?Casino_Royale said:I can't be the only one shitting myself at what Putin is going to say.
Can he offer a ceasefire please?
A ceasefire is a trap.
The only ceasefire comes when he is out of Ukr.0 -
If people haven't noticed the brouhaha about energy bills so far they're not going to notice that campaign.Sandpit said:
Because a surprising number of people still won’t have been paying attention - except perhaps to petrol prices, which went up and are now coming down again, so all good.BartholomewRoberts said:
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
A public information campaign is a cheap way to reduce demand, and to make people aware that bills will be higher than expected.2 -
Russia Today said 8pm.NickPalmer said:
How firm was the announcement that an address was coming - official, or Ukrainian spin?Leon said:New rumour. No Vladimir tonight
And yet the speech was pre-recorded. So this is even murkier0 -
I find it hard to believe anyone hasn't paid attention to gas prices, let alone anyone who will actually pay attention to a government campaign. Anyone that oblivious would be oblivious to a campaign too.Sandpit said:
Because a surprising number of people still won’t have been paying attention - except perhaps to petrol prices, which went up and are now coming down again, so all good.BartholomewRoberts said:
With gas prices as they are, what more is needed for a "campaign"?ydoethur said:Truss is an idiot. No rationing and no campaigns to limit use of gas? What a fool.
A public information campaign is a cheap way to reduce demand, and to make people aware that bills will be higher than expected.
People too often think the government should solve issues, the government has no magic buttons to press.0 -
He’s not Russian it tonight.3
-
He could still be man of the year.Luckyguy1983 said:...
Teehee. Not a terrible idea.moonshine said:
Now that would be amusing. Time Magazine Man of the Year, Protector of Democracy Putin.TheKitchenCabinet said:
Would agree with much of that.moonshine said:Xi Jinping’s security guarantee to Kazakhstan represents a fairly unprecedented public overreach into the “Russian sphere”. Modi and Erdogan have also issued withering statements in the last week on Russia’s war.
People here keep wetting the bed saying Putin has no out except nuclear weapons. Nonsense.
All he has to do is say, “look I tried mobilisation. But we can’t win territory for our cousins in Donbas if they aren’t prepared to fight themselves. And they are all lazy cowards and I won’t risk Russian lives on those blood traitors any longer.”
That buys him time for a fudge on crimea. And in truth this mobilisation is a sham. If they couldn’t feed the initial invading hoard or give them more than a magazine of ammo and a tank of fuel, how do you think it’s going to go now that Russian logistics capacity has been so degraded and there are more mouths to feed, guns to fill with bullets and bodies to protect from heavy arms?
This is either the final roll of the dice before Putin meets his end. Or it’s a Hokey Cokey type strategy to put his left leg in so he can then take his right left out and we’ll see the continued orderly retreat.
There is also another trick he could play.
Hold the Referenda and then say that all the three regions have decided to stay with Ukraine and no to being incorporated with Russia. He can withdraw saying he's accepted the vote.
Now, I know that's unlikely but...
It's "who had most impact", rather than "best individual", isn't it? Stalin and the Ayatollah both made it.
The first two "Women of the Year" were Wallis Simpson and QEII in 1952. Could XQEII get it this year?
I'd say it will be Mr Z rather than Vlad the Mad.1
This discussion has been closed.