RIPA Act passed in 2000. This is just an amendment. It won't get debated, it will be done by committee. Writing to an MP means that they will more than likely just try to use it as leverage against the civil service. I have done it in the vain hope that I could make a difference, but dont believe that it will be thrown out if tested in the High Court: the Human Rights Act is discrecionary, no more, no less.
You're probably right as Gibraltar is a tax haven. However Gibraltar is just a big Rock peninsular at the southern tip of Spain. It is not an island. And if the British and European governments get their way, it won't be a haven much longer, as it will be assimilated into Spain.
by switching their recommended implementation to IBM's DB2.
This lasted only about as long as a Newborn cow in England lasts nowadays. Their recommended dB layer is actually M$ SQL (running on NT of course), and has been for a while.
This isn't true, SAP announced first that they were going with IBM's DB2 but that lasted all of about five minutes before announcing that instead they will be using MS SQL. In fact, logging into one of their development systems right now tells me that they are using MS SQL version 7.00.699.
What they are releasing is in fact something that has been partly Open sourced beforehand and if you check on their website you will find that they have provided quite a lot of help to Linux as well as other Open Source projects.
I still believe that politicians have usually better informations into their hands that their electors
I can see your point, for the majority of the uninformed masses. However, ironically it is a case of the British public copying the French way at the moment, and extending it so that it is showing that the British politicians really aren't in touch with the feeling of the populous, viz the current British blockades. I suspect that you are finding this amusing, and quite rightly, as I am as well. The politicians are saying that this is pointless it won't work, blah, blah. But because of the panic buying, it is possible that the fuel will run out today, just 24 hours later. My first thought when this started was 'Why didn't this happen before?' Just a thought, but if the European Union could harmonise taxes for this sort of thing, such as petrol, cigarettes, etcetera, it would probably start putting them in a better light in the eyes of the British, so long as it didn't intefere with the quality of public services that we have. If the British government really was in favour of the European Union, then it would find a way to minimise the loss of taxes wouldn't it?
if some of them in UK are still supporting the Euro
Unfortunately, it does not work like this. When the conservatives were in power, they supported the Euro, and Labour were against it. Now it's round the other way on both counts. So, you have to ask, why is it only those in power that are supporting the Euro? Is it because there is something in it for them, rather than the country as a whole? Otoh, if there are some of those in the party in power STILL against the Euro, it probably means there are also some strong reasons NOT to do so...:)
You compared VW, Mercedes and BMW to the likes of Jaguar and Rolls Royce... Not exactly the same market is it? Compare the number of VW/Merc/BMW to Rolls Royce... It's not surprising that they couldn't compete on an equivalent basis and yes Rover: bad, dead, but is this really proof of the success of the countries differing economic policies? If you use a different industry, let's say Telecoms, then Vodafone and Mannesmann are BOTH doing very well, as well as BT and Deusche Telecom. Using manufacturing as the basis is not necessarily the best judge. So saying that the other countries did better might be true in the manufacturing sector, but does it hold for all sections of the corporate market? Would Europe's biggest stock exchange still be in the UK, at the moment at least, if that were true? Well, maybe, it's traditionally so, and it will be interesting to see whether it does join with Frankfurt.
I think the choice should be offered to UK citizens like this : "Would you rather use the Euros, or the USD ?
Funnily enough, if you gave the public the choice of Euros or Dollars, it would be no contest: it would be dollars. Maybe that is not such a good question to ask!! The British are just not as anti-American as mainland Europe are. We can deal with the blatent rewritings of history, the arrogance, the loudmouthed patriotism. That's just American.
I'm still wondering why your fellow countrymen put so much efforts into destroying food.
You know, so have I. There are some fine restaurants in the UK, but because of the bizarre efforts of the others, we still have the reputation. It's a shame, because just as a bad French waiter continues their bad reputation (wholly justified up until my fifth or six visit to France), it's not true for a good proportion. Ah well, it still always rains in the UK.;-)
Jousting is for sissies
No, it's just the amusant bouche before the sword fight:-).
Inivisible Black Helicopter territory? Well, quite possibly, I'm a cynic. I see through politicians lies, corporate lies, advertising, and all sorts of things. I have a younger sister: I had to see why she was suddenly being nice to me on occassion! Hell, I'm reading Slashdot, and I am explaning that I am cynic...:)
I can see why my post looks like conspiratorial, and in that reasoning your argument does make sense, but my (not-so-)implication that Herr Ingenieurs couldn't have made the X5 without the help of the Rover engineers was not intended at all, and thus neither the insult: I'm looking it at from this point of view: they are extremely capable of their own design, and excellent design at that (as mentioned in another response to Betcour, I drive a BMW so appreciate the quality of their design) but as the Range Rover has always been a market leader bought by many people who would never take it off-road despite it's capabilities, wouldn't it make sense to use that data if it was on offer? Looking at it from your point of view, that BMW made a 'soft' 4x4, what made a real offroader so attractive as a car that would be never taken off-road? Yes, the furnishings inside couls be realised by just buying one, but the ride, the transmission, it all takes a lot of research to perfect, and is not so obvious just from taking a car apart: why did they choose this, why not that: all that would be available from Rover itself.
It seems like a clincher to me when looking around for a company for the small and mid size market at the same time. Especially when they can get a massive rebate from the UK government as you mentioned, and also big subsidies over the next couple of years as well. I'm not denying that they lost money and it was a lot granted. They were looking for another massive subsidy from the UK government beforehand, and when the UK treasury decided that they just couldn't okay it, BMW really didn't have a choice but to sell. The mistake about the small and midsize market had been made (and the data had been retrieved: whether this is in the invisible black helicopter territory or not we may never know for sure but I think that it is a distinct possibility).
I had an argument with my father when this happened as he was disgusted about the tactics, the loss of jobs etcetera, but I couldn't see how they had kept losing money in it for so long unless there was another reason. Perhaps it was sentimentality, but that would be the exception (to prove the rule?) wouldn't it? You have to admit that is very unusual in corporate business even in the autoindustry.
Mistake made, I did indeed mean Jeep Cherokee and Wrangler. Despite preview, still missed that. The Cherokee is very popular in the UK, especially in the last few years: it those middle class mothers doing the school runs that love that sort of thing, and there are loads of them. There was a longer waiting list for the Cherokee than the Z3 when BMW introduced it. There still aren't as many Neons sold AFAIK in the UK as elsewhere in Europe. The Neon did stop the Chrysler decline in Europe, but in the UK it was the Cherokee. So the peculiar conditions of the UK market do exist in some cases: not the most practical of people..
The Usenet post proves that (nice flaming reply btw!), as how that will help save their company is beyond me: obviously the thought of losing their job along with all their friends brought on some anger that proved stronger than reason. Certainly not excusing it though. But I find it difficult to have empathy, and see what they were seeing when this was announced. It wasn't my job, and I have skills in demand: many of them would have become jobless, with little chance of getting another, having only skills for a dying industry.
Now, what was this story about? AOL and TW? Like that was interesting!!
First thing to say is it has been good to hear the 'other' side from someone who is able to reply with a decent argument for a change. Of those I have talked to in person, I usually don't get responses to my arguments, and of those on the net it usually has fallen into abuse which this hasn't. Merci.
but because UK is less attractive for them
This is a possibility I don't disagree but we will have to agree to disagree as to whether it is the main reason. There are lots of factors of course such as building another factory in the same country is not something many companies investing in a foreign market would do, as it is silly to put all the eggs in one basket.
You can't argue that not being in the Euro zone is hurting business...
Oh yes I can..;-) It is hurting some, and is a positive boom to others. Certainly more American firms are investing in the UK because they didn't join. But any European firms operating in the UK are of course being hurt and vice-versa. There are trade offs without a doubt. Interestingly, I heard of a company from Holland that pays one Dutch subsidurary from another Dutch subsiduary via the UK in order to use the currency fluctuations! It made the programming harder for the person involved but he thought that was a sneaky way to make some money. (At least at the moment while the Euro continues to slide).
I wish they would stop following the US everywhere
It probably looks that way from the outside, but in most cases we (as in UK and US) tend to agree though rather than just following the US. One of those where we didn't was Kosovo, where the US didn't want to commit ground troops: who did, but the British, the French... And it's not like there is British Troops at Guatanamo Bay, or in Panama. And ironically enough, and although I disagree with it, the British have had troops in Columbia for a very long time now on covert missions, long before the US really got involved. Sometimes the US follows the UK..
Andorra could have a bigger economy than the US
Along with Ibiza and Lichtenstein they certainly have a big 'laundry' business, so you never know
it seems UK is only in the EU to destroy the EU
That is the first time I have heard it put like that. From my point of view, and not intending to be rude, it seems that the UK is always having to stand up to German demands which are backed up by France who are in agreement just to suck up to them. I doubt this is the case, but sometimes it is hard not to take the slightly more objective view. Again, I think that always trying to block everything... is OTT, and maybe because it is more of the blocking that gets reported on the continent than the agreements (unsuprisingly!). This is the problem of trying to integrate such different peoples as we know, and I don't think it will work without more say from the populous. One of the problems of the UK is that the European Parliament elections are seen as an opportunity to protest against the government, and not as voting for the equivalent of a Senator in the US. It doesn't help when we have failed politicians in high office in the European Parliament either (I am thinking of Neil Kinnock). But the effect is not seen directly, and when decrees are passed down by Europe, it is not generally understood that these people were voted in, and all that is seen is the ridiculous beurocracy, the perks, the big expense accounts, the 'club' atmosphere that seems to pevade the commission. It makes it hard to take these people seriously as 'representatives'.
My bet is that the officials know better than the average citizen
I have to disagree. I think that most people realise that it is going to be hard to avoid, but whereas most politicians seem to be happy to go in with the current setup, most citizens aren't. You may be surprised but the split is actually pretty even in UK politics between those for and against, but most of the respected commentators that are against which ARE a majority, tend to point out the corruption and failure of the ECB to have strong policies. Germany certainly kept their economy stronger when they were not harnessed by it.
Perhaps the best solution is for the UK to leave the union altogether, and then this would help the Euro, the Union get things sorted within, and then when we do have to join if this is the case, we would have to be accepted on the Union terms, which would either be acceptable to the average UK citizen or not, but at least they would know what they were agreeing to, and not as before when the populous thought they were just joining a Free Trade area... Like THAT will happen though! Oh well.
but in reality it has no practical use
There is some trade agreements for Commonwealth countries, and also there is aid contingencies as well. This is why suspension from the Commonwealth happens, because it does have some effect, albeit small. Useful for athletes as well, as there is the Commonwealth games. Hmm. Never mind.
be a African currency is.. the France CFA
I was told about the Afro by a friend when in Kenya (he worked there, and now in Sudan) and did see something mentioned in The Daily Nation. Unfortunately they don't have a Search function, so I can't see if the article was even out on the web. He said that it would link up the Central African currencies such as the CFA with those of Kenya and Zimbabwe for example, but it was only in the early stages of being talked about. (BTW, Whilst I was out there I also saw a first draft UN reports, and the final version was heavily censored for 'political' reasons). Anyway, I can't see it happening either, and that's why I was agreeing that the best chance of competition for the US$ would be a harmonised Eurozone..
Well I lobby for "one citizen, one vote", but many countries (including UK) are opposed to this system, since they means giving away some of the control they have over EU matters.
This made me laugh, I know it is just a miscommunication. Unless you really are saying that in France not every citizen has a vote? Mais, non! Ce n'est pas vrai! LOL. Proportional Representation is the fairest way of electing representatives, but it also causes other problems. Just as the extreme was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo/Bosnia etc it tends to segregate people from different cultures and those of different beliefs. If that problem could be overcome, I would be for it as long as the politicians could stop the squabbling that is so inherent in the countries using PR at the moment.
BTW, won't that be neat to be paid in Euro in Germany and buy in Euros in Holland, and have Le Monde have se same price in Euros everywhere ?
Well, it would be. But I get paid in Pounds because the rates for my job in the UK are better..:) But do you think that Le Monde will be the same price across the whole of Europe soon? I think it will be a long time before that happens.
if this is true then then this should be changed. But keep in mind that the richest country in EU have to pay for the poorest.
The UK asked for this to happen, but the Germans opposed it as did the French, on the basis that Germany paid more into the commission even though they have a larger population. And I am not against the richer helping the poorer at all, even if this isn't quite in a charitable way, especially having seen what a difference this has made to Eire: It is just fairness I am looking for.
we knew about English food before;)
Best food I have had? In Montreal, where our cultures combine. Maybe you are right about that Union thing..;-)
UK hasn't really proven to be a partner to the EU
Maybe not, but listen to the politicians: we are virtually always described as partners... This was what I was referring to. There seems to be a contradiction here.
remember the coal agreement back in the 50s
Well, I know of it, but I don't remember it, having been born twenty years later...:) History has a habit of providing strange twists, and this was one of them really when looking at the history between the French and the Germans even in the previous fifty years. Who knows what might happen: what would happen if we did what the Dutch did for the Norh Sea and claimed some of La Manche back for land...
making the centralised system work instead (because it can be so much more powerfull when it works well).
We all dream of Utopia. I really don't see it working better than the US though, and we have the added problem of speaking lots of different languages let alone dialects! It would be nice for the officials to be in touch, and it would be nice if we could vote on more of the issues that we are involved in, but I really do think that this is a dream. Malheureusement.
T[h]atcher, but then everybody and their dog is too
LOL. Even Haider, that Austrian Politician whose name I am not sure of? Well, maybe. But she did get us out of a pretty bad situation (created by a Socialist government in the 1970s) in fairness to her, even if she was extreme once we out of it, and needed locking up.
get your sword (on your left) with your right hand
Well personally I would have my lance in my right hand, and be holding onto the reigns with my left, as it goes back to the times of jousting. What I don't understand is that if we held the sword with our right hand why is it that we shake hands with our right hands? Surely that means that we would have to swap which hand was holding the sword? And if you didn't really trust each other.. Well, I can see another reason how the population was kept down!
polymer based displays would maintain the picture when switched off
So what happens to screen savers: would they no longer be needed?
Just thinking of the scene in Total Recall (perhaps?) where the view of outside is in fact a screen, which when Shazza pressed the remote goes to the News or whatever, so could the picture it maintains be something similar to this 'view'?
To be honest I find this to be at least very suspect.
I found it very surprising. Traditionally the BBC has been very PRO-Euro, and only recently came under attack for it's stance from the regulator, so to see this I was surprised enough for it to stick in my mind. I wish I could remember the name of the companies involved for you.
Well, several new Japanese car factories have been built in Euro-zone (including a big Toyota one in France), while UK was traditionnaly the place to do that a while ago.
However in your first post
most Japanese car manufacturer were building or moving their plants from UK to countries part of the Euro
So, the focus has been changed but they aren't moving their operations from the UK to Europe. This is called Expansion last time I looked.
This would have not happened, had the UK been in the Euro... but now for a car manufacturer aiming the European market, building a car factory in a non-Euro country is totally a no-no
Or perhaps BECAUSE of the success of the manufacturing in the UK, it is now possible to expand their operations into Europe. Did you not read on some of those links how the High Yen and Weak Euro is seriously affecting their profits?
This sentences says the opposite...
No, it doesn't say the opposite. It was a choice between Dagenham and Cologne, and the reason Cologne survived is becaue it was easier to sack the workers in Dagenham! Is that a bad thing for the UK? Well not according to a quote from that same page..
The hallmark of a dynamic capitalist economy is what the Austrian economist Josef Schumpeter described as "creative destruction". Ultimately, what matters is that the jobs and businesses created are on balance more numerous and more productive than the ones destroyed.
In the past five to seven years, Britain has passed that test more successfully than any other major economy in Europe.
the UK always side with the US
Not true. It might seem like that but when it comes to trade agreements you will find that the UK tend to side more with Europe than the US, it's just when it comes to foreign and defense policy that we differ from Europe.
that only happenend because the economy "size" was measured in Euros
The economy still overtook that of the French whether you measure it in Pounds, Euros, Dollars, Rupees! I cannot believe that you are arguing this point seeing as it means that as France has a slightly smaller population each person is on average richer! Surely if you are blaming the Euro, then you admit that
in other words, had it not been for horrible economic and monetary union, Britain's economy would still be unambiguously behind France's.
taken from this page. But I conceed to you that this is not the best measure of economy. So let's move on.
UK can't be opposed to the EU and be part of it at the same time.
You mean that everyone within the EU has to agree with EU polica ALL the time and cannot take an opposing view??? *SCARY*. I don't want to be part of that then. Secondly that is kind of my point. If the population is opposed to it, why do we have to stay in?
Commonwealth (n) : the dust that remains from what used to be a great empire, and what is now a pure theorical construction.
A pure theoretical construction? Might not have 'power' in the form of an Empire, but an Empire is an outdated concept, and frankly one of which I am not particularly proud. The fifty four countries includes Great Britain, Canada (two of the G8 countries), Australia and India (fastest growing economy in the world at the moment) so if they stay part of this purely theoretical construction my question is Why? There must be advantages, and if that is the case, it cannot be theoretical.
The Euro is a work in progress, and its full power will only be seen after 2002 (when all EU citizens start really using it daily).
I hope so, because I sure as hell don't want to have to bow to the all powerful US for everything, and the Eurozone is the best chance of a competitor at the moment, unless the 'Afro' (believe it or not!) somehow get's the African states economy going!
That sounds a good thing to me - making car manufacturers pay for the pollution they generate
I don't disagree, but when it had been decided by the manufacturers that it was ALREADY going to do this: from the original page:-
3. The motor industry voluntarily agreed to take back all new cars from 2001 before this decision was announced.
What is the point? Isn't it just a waste of resources, and therefore a waste of both of our taxes? Why not let the manufacturers deal with the cost of the slumping Euro first, which was their decision to do this from next year? I REALLY have to agree with you: I wish governments were more resistant to Economic lobbies, and I think that it was a great idea, if it wasn't for the fact that it had already been decided. I hope that if they do make more laws like these, that they do it BEFOREHAND, not after the horse has bolted.
which will probably veto anyway, like they always do
That's right. Always. I don't think that you understand the veto very well. According to this definition, it was actually FRANCE that instigated the veto, which is weighted by Nation
This dispute led to France refusing all co-operation with the Community in 1965, a crisis only resolved by the Luxembourg Compromise, under which it was conceded that decisions affecting a vital national interest would have to be unanimous, even if the Treaty specified majority voting.
The fact that it is also by far the biggest in term of population and economy is why they can have more importance in the EU choices.
Proportional representation is great in theory but not in practice (just ask Italy), but this isn't even what is happening. If you check the veto figures, you will find that Germany, UK and France all have a block of ten. The UK does not have the power of veto alone any more even on it's own issues. That was the agreed terms, and that's how it should be, if you believe in fair terms being honoured. If you believe that Germany has more of a say, you should lobby for them to have a bigger block, or France a smaller one.
OTHO the UK politics, who don't read the Sun
I find it amusing that you seem to believe that I read either The Sun or The Mirror and am just regurgitating what I have read. Sorry to refute this belief, but I live in Holland, and am working in Germany: I don't get to see Page Three any more. In fact, I tend to read Le Monde more if I can get hold of it, because I can understand French a hell of a lot better than either Dutch or German! But I care about my home country.
UK in EU doesn't do any good to the EU
...except put in the highest contribution per capita, and provide someone to laugh at..:) C'mon, who else would have provided you with the Mad Cow Crisis? Well, okay maybe Belgium, but it wouldn't have been so amusing for you would it! (Note to Belgians: my company is based in Belgium, it is a joke I have with them all the time, especially since that Coke crisis!)
to side with the EU
You see, you let yourself down by your own admission. Why should we 'side' with the EU, and not be a partner in the EU? I agree that it makes more sense to join the closest in order to compete financially, but then again, everywhere else, people are fighting for their own rule, be it in Montenegro, Kosovo, Scotland, Wales, Basque or Corsica. I don't think that the thoughts of people in London, Berlin, Paris, Brussels should be imposed on everyone, just as so many people here on/. complain that those in Washington are not in touch. Have you ever been to California? I was amazed at just how many 'California Republic' flags fly there.
Centralised government is fine as long as it doesn't try to control to much, and I really believe that the European Comission does not need to have as much power as they want, as I want to be more in control of my destiny, and my country's destiny, and I would hope you would want that too.
Anyway, without differences of opinion, Napolean wouldn't have decided to march on the opposite side of the road to the English, and then we'd all be driving on the wrong side, and that wouldn't be any fun now, would it!
Ignoring your blatent insult, I will respond. I'll guess that you disagree with my reasoning and were thus incensed.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper and smarter for them to buy *a* Range Rover -- or a hundred! -- in stead of the whole company
I could buy a car and see what was in it, most definitely, but if I really wanted to compete on a technological level, then buying the company, getting all their current research and data and being able to see the direction of their plans, and then applying that to their own car is miles better. They didn't buy it a decade ago, it was six years ago, and the TENS OF BILLIONS OF DEUTSCHE MARK was heavily subsidised by the UK government.
BMW originally posited that they bought Rover to give them an entry into the midrange car market, and historically Rover had been good, but as you point out, it was a money-hemorrhaging corporation when they bought it: a sound investment? I don't think so, so you have to look at the other reasons why it was bought, and perhaps read between the lines a little. To me I can see the distinct advantage of paying what they have done, so they can create their own off-roader, which will make them money hand over fist. Look at the share of the market that Chrysler had in Europe before they started importing the Jeep and Wrangler to Europe.. And before you say that the market is becoming saturated, it isn't with BMW SUVs.
I think that I have to mention that I am not criticising BMW for what they did because it makes sense, hell I even drive a 320i: I am not anti-BMW or pro Rover. I even said "that is the British government's fault". My point was that it had nothing to do with Betcour's implication that if a Japanese car firm stays in Britain it will end up like Rover. It depends on the CARS being produced and where they aim in the market not whether they are being produced in Britain.
kept getting jammed because commonly used letters were close to each other
I think what you were talking about is discussed here. What it points to is that the keys were that close together that when they were pressed in succession at normal speed the arms would get jammed, so the new layout was devised not to separate them, but to make the time needed to move between them longer by making the distance between them longer, so that the keys wouldn't be pressed in such quick succession, thus slowing the typist down in fact.
So, although you were right, QWERTY was indeed intended to slow typing down so that the arms didn't jam. A little demonstration of the rearranged keyboard is the Dvorak keyboard.
I know how easy it is to get used to different keyboard layouts having used QWERTY (of course), AZERTY (French), and am currently typing on a QWERTZ (German).
I dunno on which alternate dimension you live, but business are certainly not leaving Europe for the American continent
Unfortunately they are. Reports on CNN, TV5 and BBC this week point to companies moving from Germany (the strongest economy in Europe) to the States because they cannot compete with the prices of raw materials being caused by the weak Euro. Unfortunately it was on TV, and thus I cannot provide a link, so I cannot provide the evidence to back this up despite a quick search on Google.
most Japanese car manufacturer were building or moving their plants from UK to countries part of the Euro...
Most? Evidence please? I think perhaps you are confusing Ford moving manufacturing of the Fiesta to Cologne from Dagenham, and from this page, this quote sums that up:
Bill Morris, the Transport and General Workers' leader, is almost certainly right to maintain that it is much easier and cheaper to sack workers in Britain than in Germany and that this is a major factor behind Ford's apparent decision to shift output to Cologne.
From this report it seems that even though Toyota want to deal in Euros for some of their UK suppliers, they are still increasing production in the UK. As for Rover, how is that Japanese? If I recall, BMW bought that to get hold of the technology to build it's own version of the Range Rover, not caring whether it actually survived or not and once it had the information, discarded it. Now that is the British government's fault, but I cannot see how that is relevant to what we are talking about. The Motor Manufacturing Inudstry is being hit globally, but just to help them along, there is directives like this one being made by the European Union. Is that helping anyone in Europe?
What would you prefer : pay someone 50000 USD/year or 50000 Euros/year ?
It doesn't work like that. If the cost of living in Europe is higher, which it is, it means you pay them accordingly. You don't just set an arbritary figure and then add a $ or on the end of it. If a barrel cost $30 and the Euro slumps, it means that whereas it used to cost 30 it now costs 35. So the fact that the oil has risen as well is only part of the reason for the current blockades.
kissing the US ass
I hope this isn't just jealousy because the UK overtook France as the second biggest economy in Europe this year having not joined the Eurozone and although Echelon was not just the UK and America as you seem to imply, France wasn't included...? You should be grateful as you got your own Echelon system whereas we had to share with Australia, New Zealand...:-(
If the UK wants to remain an island isolated from the world
remain (r-mn)
v. intr. remained, remaining, remains.
To continue in the same state or condition: These matters remain in doubt.
For us to 'remain' it is dependant on us already being isolated, and we aren't really as we are kissing up to the US ass and moaning all the time about the EU, as well as being the head of the Commonwealth? When Norway voted against becoming part of the EU, did you notice how isolated they became('remained'), and the country's GDP rose in the following year?
I am with you on the last point: I wish we never had joined, as do most (69% at the last poll) of the people in the UK. We moan for good reason. For an example of this and on how certain people want Europe to work try checking here. He implies that he only thought the German people had a right to decide on whether more countries should joing the EU..
PS Maybe we should be working together on this, as we both seem to want the same thing: the UK out of Europe!:-)
Yes, big business is fleeing to the American continent from the European continent where they don't have to deal with the devalued Euro, costing them more for every raw material they buy.
UK Industry has been in decline for the past fifty years, and the fact that so many American and Far Eastern companies have invested in the UK instead of on the European continent because of the unwillingness of the UK to join the Euro pretty much proves the point of not joining.
In other words, the UK government are going to have to come up with a pretty good lie to dupe the common man into believing that it is a Good Thing(TM) and a better one than the one that fooled us into joining the 'Common Market'.
And did you ever notice how all new phones can "fall back" to analog?
What it means is that in North America there is not the infrastructure for digital phones to be always on the digital service. Dual band phones in North America might mean Digital and Analogue, but Dual Band phones in the rest of the world mean two different carrier band frequencies. I think this answers points (1) and (2) as well.
Analogue works because the infrastructure is there. Once the infrastucture is there, digital is MUCH preferable to Analogue, and I say this having been on a digital service for four years now in Europe, and when having to deal with the hiss and crackle of a analogue service both when in Canada and the States, it really annoyed me.
As for the hacking, no it cannot happen on AMPS, but then of course with a cheap scanner, anyone can listen in on your calls.
All this new-fangled technology, it will never last!! End sarcasm.
Mr Blair also stressed that he was in favour of so-called zero tolerance and wanted a society based on respect for others.
How very typical of a politician to contradict himself in a single sentence. Does he mean that if he doesn't respect your lifestyle, he won't have to tolerate it? Sounds like the Criminal Justice Act all over again, but who is he wishing to persecute now? I don't believe for a moment that this is aimed at Organised Crime.
Without him actually being polygraphed whilst answering I don't think we are likely to find out, but I was told this by two different sources, one of whom used to DJ at the Cornwall parties, and the other is someone that claimed to know his gf pretty well, and certainly knew enough about him to justify this to me, even though she had no interest in techno.
But as is obvious from what I have said, sorry, but I can't make it gospel for you!
Richard James also did another arcade sampler that you will know as well, but maybe didn't know it was him: Pacman: 'Powerpill' on FFRR... Remember that? Yes, that was him, he had just been given a portable DAT recorder by Warp (or maybe R&S) and he went down the arcades...
I do believe that you have become caught up in the propaganda of the drug 'war'. Grouping narcotics/drugs/chemicals into legal and non-legal (and thus safe and harmful) is foolhardy. Alcohol is legal, but more dangerous than heroin in the same quantities. Caffeine *is* more addictive than MDMA/ecstasy.
In response to some of your points:
1)It's absurd to compare illicit narcotics with caffeine.
Why? Because it is not illegal? Because it is in coffee? Caffeine is a very dangerous drugs in some cases, and the fact that you haven't had caffeine for more than a year now says that you realise that perhaps even though it is legal, it isn't necessarily good for you: doesn't the opposite premise come into play here as well: if it is illegal, then is it necessarily bad for you?
2)Can caffeine produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics?
Without a doubt. Why is it that a lot of 'fake' Ecstasy pills in Europe have a good dose of Caffeine in them only?
3)No, caffeine is not addictive. Strongly appealing, perhaps, but not addictive. Caffeine does not have the addictive properties of drugs.
There is two main definitions of addictive: physically and mentally. Heroin/Cocaine are physically addictive as well as mentally. Marijuana is mildly mentally addictive, and not physically addictive at all: in fact it is less addictive than chocolate, which acts on the same part of the brain. Caffeine is addictive, which is why so many people need their dose in the morning, me included.
Drugs do...[cause people to go rob stores/etc]
No, I don't disagree, but not *all* drugs, and certainly not *only* drugs. There has to be distinction made: a toker will not hold up a gas station in order to get his next ounce, whereas a crackhead won't think twice about it to get his next rock (or mod points). The ones that do manufacture won't need some website, there is plenty of people who know how to do it and will gladly do so.
Now about the Freedom of Speech thing: During Prohibition, were all books detailing how to make wine/beer/vodka destroyed? Should they have been? Because this is what you seem to be advocating. Or is it just particular non-scientific sites that should be taken down? In which case, if a paper from some University goes into detail of how to make a 'drug' should it be banned because of the content, and the fact that it is available to kids? Or is this legitimate research? It is still the information available.
Just because the law is there, does not make it right, and this is not about protecting the children, this is about government propaganda: you know no other side to a story, you have no choice but to listen to that side over and over again, and to paraphrase that German Propaganda minister, Goebels(sp?), Tell the people a lie enough times they believe it.
I didn't intend to flame, but I don't like people repeating a lot of government crap about WHICHEVER subject. I think that everyone should get informed and not rely on biased FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
RIPA Act passed in 2000. This is just an amendment. It won't get debated, it will be done by committee. Writing to an MP means that they will more than likely just try to use it as leverage against the civil service. I have done it in the vain hope that I could make a difference, but dont believe that it will be thrown out if tested in the High Court: the Human Rights Act is discrecionary, no more, no less.
You're probably right as Gibraltar is a tax haven. However Gibraltar is just a big Rock peninsular at the southern tip of Spain. It is not an island. And if the British and European governments get their way, it won't be a haven much longer, as it will be assimilated into Spain.
This lasted only about as long as a Newborn cow in England lasts nowadays. Their recommended dB layer is actually M$ SQL (running on NT of course), and has been for a while.
Arrgh, but I can't read it cause it's /.ed..
And I can't post mine either.. Grrrr.
And now the printer has started making burning smells.
You bastards!
Instead of cypherpunks/cypherpunks try cpunks and cpunks.
This isn't true, SAP announced first that they were going with IBM's DB2 but that lasted all of about five minutes before announcing that instead they will be using MS SQL. In fact, logging into one of their development systems right now tells me that they are using MS SQL version 7.00.699.
What they are releasing is in fact something that has been partly Open sourced beforehand and if you check on their website you will find that they have provided quite a lot of help to Linux as well as other Open Source projects.
And, no, I don't work for SAP.
I can see your point, for the majority of the uninformed masses. However, ironically it is a case of the British public copying the French way at the moment, and extending it so that it is showing that the British politicians really aren't in touch with the feeling of the populous, viz the current British blockades. I suspect that you are finding this amusing, and quite rightly, as I am as well. The politicians are saying that this is pointless it won't work, blah, blah. But because of the panic buying, it is possible that the fuel will run out today, just 24 hours later. My first thought when this started was 'Why didn't this happen before?' Just a thought, but if the European Union could harmonise taxes for this sort of thing, such as petrol, cigarettes, etcetera, it would probably start putting them in a better light in the eyes of the British, so long as it didn't intefere with the quality of public services that we have. If the British government really was in favour of the European Union, then it would find a way to minimise the loss of taxes wouldn't it?
if some of them in UK are still supporting the Euro
Unfortunately, it does not work like this. When the conservatives were in power, they supported the Euro, and Labour were against it. Now it's round the other way on both counts. So, you have to ask, why is it only those in power that are supporting the Euro? Is it because there is something in it for them, rather than the country as a whole? Otoh, if there are some of those in the party in power STILL against the Euro, it probably means there are also some strong reasons NOT to do so... :)
You compared VW, Mercedes and BMW to the likes of Jaguar and Rolls Royce... Not exactly the same market is it? Compare the number of VW/Merc/BMW to Rolls Royce... It's not surprising that they couldn't compete on an equivalent basis and yes Rover: bad, dead, but is this really proof of the success of the countries differing economic policies? If you use a different industry, let's say Telecoms, then Vodafone and Mannesmann are BOTH doing very well, as well as BT and Deusche Telecom. Using manufacturing as the basis is not necessarily the best judge. So saying that the other countries did better might be true in the manufacturing sector, but does it hold for all sections of the corporate market? Would Europe's biggest stock exchange still be in the UK, at the moment at least, if that were true? Well, maybe, it's traditionally so, and it will be interesting to see whether it does join with Frankfurt.
I think the choice should be offered to UK citizens like this : "Would you rather use the Euros, or the USD ?
Funnily enough, if you gave the public the choice of Euros or Dollars, it would be no contest: it would be dollars. Maybe that is not such a good question to ask!! The British are just not as anti-American as mainland Europe are. We can deal with the blatent rewritings of history, the arrogance, the loudmouthed patriotism. That's just American.
I'm still wondering why your fellow countrymen put so much efforts into destroying food.
You know, so have I. There are some fine restaurants in the UK, but because of the bizarre efforts of the others, we still have the reputation. It's a shame, because just as a bad French waiter continues their bad reputation (wholly justified up until my fifth or six visit to France), it's not true for a good proportion. Ah well, it still always rains in the UK. ;-)
Jousting is for sissies
No, it's just the amusant bouche before the sword fight :-).
And the prize to be the last one left is...?
I can see why my post looks like conspiratorial, and in that reasoning your argument does make sense, but my (not-so-)implication that Herr Ingenieurs couldn't have made the X5 without the help of the Rover engineers was not intended at all, and thus neither the insult: I'm looking it at from this point of view: they are extremely capable of their own design, and excellent design at that (as mentioned in another response to Betcour, I drive a BMW so appreciate the quality of their design) but as the Range Rover has always been a market leader bought by many people who would never take it off-road despite it's capabilities, wouldn't it make sense to use that data if it was on offer? Looking at it from your point of view, that BMW made a 'soft' 4x4, what made a real offroader so attractive as a car that would be never taken off-road? Yes, the furnishings inside couls be realised by just buying one, but the ride, the transmission, it all takes a lot of research to perfect, and is not so obvious just from taking a car apart: why did they choose this, why not that: all that would be available from Rover itself.
It seems like a clincher to me when looking around for a company for the small and mid size market at the same time. Especially when they can get a massive rebate from the UK government as you mentioned, and also big subsidies over the next couple of years as well. I'm not denying that they lost money and it was a lot granted. They were looking for another massive subsidy from the UK government beforehand, and when the UK treasury decided that they just couldn't okay it, BMW really didn't have a choice but to sell. The mistake about the small and midsize market had been made (and the data had been retrieved: whether this is in the invisible black helicopter territory or not we may never know for sure but I think that it is a distinct possibility).
I had an argument with my father when this happened as he was disgusted about the tactics, the loss of jobs etcetera, but I couldn't see how they had kept losing money in it for so long unless there was another reason. Perhaps it was sentimentality, but that would be the exception (to prove the rule?) wouldn't it? You have to admit that is very unusual in corporate business even in the autoindustry.
Mistake made, I did indeed mean Jeep Cherokee and Wrangler. Despite preview, still missed that. The Cherokee is very popular in the UK, especially in the last few years: it those middle class mothers doing the school runs that love that sort of thing, and there are loads of them. There was a longer waiting list for the Cherokee than the Z3 when BMW introduced it. There still aren't as many Neons sold AFAIK in the UK as elsewhere in Europe. The Neon did stop the Chrysler decline in Europe, but in the UK it was the Cherokee. So the peculiar conditions of the UK market do exist in some cases: not the most practical of people..
The Usenet post proves that (nice flaming reply btw!), as how that will help save their company is beyond me: obviously the thought of losing their job along with all their friends brought on some anger that proved stronger than reason. Certainly not excusing it though. But I find it difficult to have empathy, and see what they were seeing when this was announced. It wasn't my job, and I have skills in demand: many of them would have become jobless, with little chance of getting another, having only skills for a dying industry.
Now, what was this story about? AOL and TW? Like that was interesting!!
Martyn.
Mark the original comment down as 'Lack of caffeine'.
but because UK is less attractive for them
This is a possibility I don't disagree but we will have to agree to disagree as to whether it is the main reason. There are lots of factors of course such as building another factory in the same country is not something many companies investing in a foreign market would do, as it is silly to put all the eggs in one basket.
You can't argue that not being in the Euro zone is hurting business...
Oh yes I can.. ;-) It is hurting some, and is a positive boom to others. Certainly more American firms are investing in the UK because they didn't join. But any European firms operating in the UK are of course being hurt and vice-versa. There are trade offs without a doubt. Interestingly, I heard of a company from Holland that pays one Dutch subsidurary from another Dutch subsiduary via the UK in order to use the currency fluctuations! It made the programming harder for the person involved but he thought that was a sneaky way to make some money. (At least at the moment while the Euro continues to slide).
I wish they would stop following the US everywhere
It probably looks that way from the outside, but in most cases we (as in UK and US) tend to agree though rather than just following the US. One of those where we didn't was Kosovo, where the US didn't want to commit ground troops: who did, but the British, the French... And it's not like there is British Troops at Guatanamo Bay, or in Panama. And ironically enough, and although I disagree with it, the British have had troops in Columbia for a very long time now on covert missions, long before the US really got involved. Sometimes the US follows the UK..
Andorra could have a bigger economy than the US
Along with Ibiza and Lichtenstein they certainly have a big 'laundry' business, so you never know
it seems UK is only in the EU to destroy the EU
That is the first time I have heard it put like that. From my point of view, and not intending to be rude, it seems that the UK is always having to stand up to German demands which are backed up by France who are in agreement just to suck up to them. I doubt this is the case, but sometimes it is hard not to take the slightly more objective view. Again, I think that always trying to block everything... is OTT, and maybe because it is more of the blocking that gets reported on the continent than the agreements (unsuprisingly!). This is the problem of trying to integrate such different peoples as we know, and I don't think it will work without more say from the populous. One of the problems of the UK is that the European Parliament elections are seen as an opportunity to protest against the government, and not as voting for the equivalent of a Senator in the US. It doesn't help when we have failed politicians in high office in the European Parliament either (I am thinking of Neil Kinnock). But the effect is not seen directly, and when decrees are passed down by Europe, it is not generally understood that these people were voted in, and all that is seen is the ridiculous beurocracy, the perks, the big expense accounts, the 'club' atmosphere that seems to pevade the commission. It makes it hard to take these people seriously as 'representatives'.
My bet is that the officials know better than the average citizen
I have to disagree. I think that most people realise that it is going to be hard to avoid, but whereas most politicians seem to be happy to go in with the current setup, most citizens aren't. You may be surprised but the split is actually pretty even in UK politics between those for and against, but most of the respected commentators that are against which ARE a majority, tend to point out the corruption and failure of the ECB to have strong policies. Germany certainly kept their economy stronger when they were not harnessed by it.
Perhaps the best solution is for the UK to leave the union altogether, and then this would help the Euro, the Union get things sorted within, and then when we do have to join if this is the case, we would have to be accepted on the Union terms, which would either be acceptable to the average UK citizen or not, but at least they would know what they were agreeing to, and not as before when the populous thought they were just joining a Free Trade area... Like THAT will happen though! Oh well.
but in reality it has no practical use
There is some trade agreements for Commonwealth countries, and also there is aid contingencies as well. This is why suspension from the Commonwealth happens, because it does have some effect, albeit small. Useful for athletes as well, as there is the Commonwealth games. Hmm. Never mind.
be a African currency is.. the France CFA
I was told about the Afro by a friend when in Kenya (he worked there, and now in Sudan) and did see something mentioned in The Daily Nation. Unfortunately they don't have a Search function, so I can't see if the article was even out on the web. He said that it would link up the Central African currencies such as the CFA with those of Kenya and Zimbabwe for example, but it was only in the early stages of being talked about. (BTW, Whilst I was out there I also saw a first draft UN reports, and the final version was heavily censored for 'political' reasons). Anyway, I can't see it happening either, and that's why I was agreeing that the best chance of competition for the US$ would be a harmonised Eurozone..
Well I lobby for "one citizen, one vote", but many countries (including UK) are opposed to this system, since they means giving away some of the control they have over EU matters.
This made me laugh, I know it is just a miscommunication. Unless you really are saying that in France not every citizen has a vote? Mais, non! Ce n'est pas vrai! LOL. Proportional Representation is the fairest way of electing representatives, but it also causes other problems. Just as the extreme was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo/Bosnia etc it tends to segregate people from different cultures and those of different beliefs. If that problem could be overcome, I would be for it as long as the politicians could stop the squabbling that is so inherent in the countries using PR at the moment.
BTW, won't that be neat to be paid in Euro in Germany and buy in Euros in Holland, and have Le Monde have se same price in Euros everywhere ?
Well, it would be. But I get paid in Pounds because the rates for my job in the UK are better .. :) But do you think that Le Monde will be the same price across the whole of Europe soon? I think it will be a long time before that happens.
if this is true then then this should be changed. But keep in mind that the richest country in EU have to pay for the poorest.
The UK asked for this to happen, but the Germans opposed it as did the French, on the basis that Germany paid more into the commission even though they have a larger population. And I am not against the richer helping the poorer at all, even if this isn't quite in a charitable way, especially having seen what a difference this has made to Eire: It is just fairness I am looking for.
we knew about English food before ;)
Best food I have had? In Montreal, where our cultures combine. Maybe you are right about that Union thing.. ;-)
UK hasn't really proven to be a partner to the EU
Maybe not, but listen to the politicians: we are virtually always described as partners... This was what I was referring to. There seems to be a contradiction here.
remember the coal agreement back in the 50s
Well, I know of it, but I don't remember it, having been born twenty years later... :) History has a habit of providing strange twists, and this was one of them really when looking at the history between the French and the Germans even in the previous fifty years. Who knows what might happen: what would happen if we did what the Dutch did for the Norh Sea and claimed some of La Manche back for land...
making the centralised system work instead (because it can be so much more powerfull when it works well).
We all dream of Utopia. I really don't see it working better than the US though, and we have the added problem of speaking lots of different languages let alone dialects! It would be nice for the officials to be in touch, and it would be nice if we could vote on more of the issues that we are involved in, but I really do think that this is a dream. Malheureusement.
T[h]atcher, but then everybody and their dog is too
LOL. Even Haider, that Austrian Politician whose name I am not sure of? Well, maybe. But she did get us out of a pretty bad situation (created by a Socialist government in the 1970s) in fairness to her, even if she was extreme once we out of it, and needed locking up.
get your sword (on your left) with your right hand
Well personally I would have my lance in my right hand, and be holding onto the reigns with my left, as it goes back to the times of jousting. What I don't understand is that if we held the sword with our right hand why is it that we shake hands with our right hands? Surely that means that we would have to swap which hand was holding the sword? And if you didn't really trust each other.. Well, I can see another reason how the population was kept down!
So what happens to screen savers: would they no longer be needed?
Just thinking of the scene in Total Recall (perhaps?) where the view of outside is in fact a screen, which when Shazza pressed the remote goes to the News or whatever, so could the picture it maintains be something similar to this 'view'?
I found it very surprising. Traditionally the BBC has been very PRO-Euro, and only recently came under attack for it's stance from the regulator, so to see this I was surprised enough for it to stick in my mind. I wish I could remember the name of the companies involved for you.
Well, several new Japanese car factories have been built in Euro-zone (including a big Toyota one in France), while UK was traditionnaly the place to do that a while ago.
However in your first post
So, the focus has been changed but they aren't moving their operations from the UK to Europe. This is called Expansion last time I looked.This would have not happened, had the UK been in the Euro... but now for a car manufacturer aiming the European market, building a car factory in a non-Euro country is totally a no-no
Or perhaps BECAUSE of the success of the manufacturing in the UK, it is now possible to expand their operations into Europe. Did you not read on some of those links how the High Yen and Weak Euro is seriously affecting their profits?
This sentences says the opposite...
No, it doesn't say the opposite. It was a choice between Dagenham and Cologne, and the reason Cologne survived is becaue it was easier to sack the workers in Dagenham! Is that a bad thing for the UK? Well not according to a quote from that same page..
the UK always side with the USNot true. It might seem like that but when it comes to trade agreements you will find that the UK tend to side more with Europe than the US, it's just when it comes to foreign and defense policy that we differ from Europe.
that only happenend because the economy "size" was measured in Euros
The economy still overtook that of the French whether you measure it in Pounds, Euros, Dollars, Rupees! I cannot believe that you are arguing this point seeing as it means that as France has a slightly smaller population each person is on average richer! Surely if you are blaming the Euro, then you admit that
taken from this page. But I conceed to you that this is not the best measure of economy. So let's move on.UK can't be opposed to the EU and be part of it at the same time.
You mean that everyone within the EU has to agree with EU polica ALL the time and cannot take an opposing view??? *SCARY*. I don't want to be part of that then. Secondly that is kind of my point. If the population is opposed to it, why do we have to stay in?
Commonwealth (n) : the dust that remains from what used to be a great empire, and what is now a pure theorical construction.
A pure theoretical construction? Might not have 'power' in the form of an Empire, but an Empire is an outdated concept, and frankly one of which I am not particularly proud. The fifty four countries includes Great Britain, Canada (two of the G8 countries), Australia and India (fastest growing economy in the world at the moment) so if they stay part of this purely theoretical construction my question is Why? There must be advantages, and if that is the case, it cannot be theoretical.
The Euro is a work in progress, and its full power will only be seen after 2002 (when all EU citizens start really using it daily).
I hope so, because I sure as hell don't want to have to bow to the all powerful US for everything, and the Eurozone is the best chance of a competitor at the moment, unless the 'Afro' (believe it or not!) somehow get's the African states economy going!
That sounds a good thing to me - making car manufacturers pay for the pollution they generate
I don't disagree, but when it had been decided by the manufacturers that it was ALREADY going to do this: from the original page:-
What is the point? Isn't it just a waste of resources, and therefore a waste of both of our taxes? Why not let the manufacturers deal with the cost of the slumping Euro first, which was their decision to do this from next year? I REALLY have to agree with you: I wish governments were more resistant to Economic lobbies, and I think that it was a great idea, if it wasn't for the fact that it had already been decided. I hope that if they do make more laws like these, that they do it BEFOREHAND, not after the horse has bolted.which will probably veto anyway, like they always do
That's right. Always. I don't think that you understand the veto very well. According to this definition, it was actually FRANCE that instigated the veto, which is weighted by Nation
The fact that it is also by far the biggest in term of population and economy is why they can have more importance in the EU choices.Proportional representation is great in theory but not in practice (just ask Italy), but this isn't even what is happening. If you check the veto figures, you will find that Germany, UK and France all have a block of ten. The UK does not have the power of veto alone any more even on it's own issues. That was the agreed terms, and that's how it should be, if you believe in fair terms being honoured. If you believe that Germany has more of a say, you should lobby for them to have a bigger block, or France a smaller one.
OTHO the UK politics, who don't read the Sun
I find it amusing that you seem to believe that I read either The Sun or The Mirror and am just regurgitating what I have read. Sorry to refute this belief, but I live in Holland, and am working in Germany: I don't get to see Page Three any more. In fact, I tend to read Le Monde more if I can get hold of it, because I can understand French a hell of a lot better than either Dutch or German! But I care about my home country.
UK in EU doesn't do any good to the EU
...except put in the highest contribution per capita, and provide someone to laugh at.. :) C'mon, who else would have provided you with the Mad Cow Crisis? Well, okay maybe Belgium, but it wouldn't have been so amusing for you would it! (Note to Belgians: my company is based in Belgium, it is a joke I have with them all the time, especially since that Coke crisis!)
to side with the EU
You see, you let yourself down by your own admission. Why should we 'side' with the EU, and not be a partner in the EU? I agree that it makes more sense to join the closest in order to compete financially, but then again, everywhere else, people are fighting for their own rule, be it in Montenegro, Kosovo, Scotland, Wales, Basque or Corsica. I don't think that the thoughts of people in London, Berlin, Paris, Brussels should be imposed on everyone, just as so many people here on /. complain that those in Washington are not in touch. Have you ever been to California? I was amazed at just how many 'California Republic' flags fly there.
Centralised government is fine as long as it doesn't try to control to much, and I really believe that the European Comission does not need to have as much power as they want, as I want to be more in control of my destiny, and my country's destiny, and I would hope you would want that too.
Anyway, without differences of opinion, Napolean wouldn't have decided to march on the opposite side of the road to the English, and then we'd all be driving on the wrong side, and that wouldn't be any fun now, would it!
Wouldn't it have been cheaper and smarter for them to buy *a* Range Rover -- or a hundred! -- in stead of the whole company
I could buy a car and see what was in it, most definitely, but if I really wanted to compete on a technological level, then buying the company, getting all their current research and data and being able to see the direction of their plans, and then applying that to their own car is miles better. They didn't buy it a decade ago, it was six years ago, and the TENS OF BILLIONS OF DEUTSCHE MARK was heavily subsidised by the UK government.
BMW originally posited that they bought Rover to give them an entry into the midrange car market, and historically Rover had been good, but as you point out, it was a money-hemorrhaging corporation when they bought it: a sound investment? I don't think so, so you have to look at the other reasons why it was bought, and perhaps read between the lines a little. To me I can see the distinct advantage of paying what they have done, so they can create their own off-roader, which will make them money hand over fist. Look at the share of the market that Chrysler had in Europe before they started importing the Jeep and Wrangler to Europe.. And before you say that the market is becoming saturated, it isn't with BMW SUVs.
I think that I have to mention that I am not criticising BMW for what they did because it makes sense, hell I even drive a 320i: I am not anti-BMW or pro Rover. I even said "that is the British government's fault". My point was that it had nothing to do with Betcour's implication that if a Japanese car firm stays in Britain it will end up like Rover. It depends on the CARS being produced and where they aim in the market not whether they are being produced in Britain.
I think what you were talking about is discussed here. What it points to is that the keys were that close together that when they were pressed in succession at normal speed the arms would get jammed, so the new layout was devised not to separate them, but to make the time needed to move between them longer by making the distance between them longer, so that the keys wouldn't be pressed in such quick succession, thus slowing the typist down in fact.
So, although you were right, QWERTY was indeed intended to slow typing down so that the arms didn't jam. A little demonstration of the rearranged keyboard is the Dvorak keyboard.
I know how easy it is to get used to different keyboard layouts having used QWERTY (of course), AZERTY (French), and am currently typing on a QWERTZ (German).
Unfortunately they are. Reports on CNN, TV5 and BBC this week point to companies moving from Germany (the strongest economy in Europe) to the States because they cannot compete with the prices of raw materials being caused by the weak Euro. Unfortunately it was on TV, and thus I cannot provide a link, so I cannot provide the evidence to back this up despite a quick search on Google.
most Japanese car manufacturer were building or moving their plants from UK to countries part of the Euro...
Most? Evidence please? I think perhaps you are confusing Ford moving manufacturing of the Fiesta to Cologne from Dagenham, and from this page, this quote sums that up:
From this report it seems that even though Toyota want to deal in Euros for some of their UK suppliers, they are still increasing production in the UK. As for Rover, how is that Japanese? If I recall, BMW bought that to get hold of the technology to build it's own version of the Range Rover, not caring whether it actually survived or not and once it had the information, discarded it. Now that is the British government's fault, but I cannot see how that is relevant to what we are talking about. The Motor Manufacturing Inudstry is being hit globally, but just to help them along, there is directives like this one being made by the European Union. Is that helping anyone in Europe?What would you prefer : pay someone 50000 USD/year or 50000 Euros/year ?
It doesn't work like that. If the cost of living in Europe is higher, which it is, it means you pay them accordingly. You don't just set an arbritary figure and then add a $ or on the end of it. If a barrel cost $30 and the Euro slumps, it means that whereas it used to cost 30 it now costs 35. So the fact that the oil has risen as well is only part of the reason for the current blockades.
kissing the US ass
I hope this isn't just jealousy because the UK overtook France as the second biggest economy in Europe this year having not joined the Eurozone and although Echelon was not just the UK and America as you seem to imply, France wasn't included...? You should be grateful as you got your own Echelon system whereas we had to share with Australia, New Zealand... :-(
If the UK wants to remain an island isolated from the world
remain (r-mn)
v. intr. remained, remaining, remains.
To continue in the same state or condition: These matters remain in doubt.
For us to 'remain' it is dependant on us already being isolated, and we aren't really as we are kissing up to the US ass and moaning all the time about the EU, as well as being the head of the Commonwealth? When Norway voted against becoming part of the EU, did you notice how isolated they became('remained'), and the country's GDP rose in the following year?
I am with you on the last point: I wish we never had joined, as do most (69% at the last poll) of the people in the UK. We moan for good reason. For an example of this and on how certain people want Europe to work try checking here. He implies that he only thought the German people had a right to decide on whether more countries should joing the EU..
PS Maybe we should be working together on this, as we both seem to want the same thing: the UK out of Europe! :-)
UK Industry has been in decline for the past fifty years, and the fact that so many American and Far Eastern companies have invested in the UK instead of on the European continent because of the unwillingness of the UK to join the Euro pretty much proves the point of not joining.
In other words, the UK government are going to have to come up with a pretty good lie to dupe the common man into believing that it is a Good Thing(TM) and a better one than the one that fooled us into joining the 'Common Market'.
What it means is that in North America there is not the infrastructure for digital phones to be always on the digital service. Dual band phones in North America might mean Digital and Analogue, but Dual Band phones in the rest of the world mean two different carrier band frequencies. I think this answers points (1) and (2) as well.
Analogue works because the infrastructure is there. Once the infrastucture is there, digital is MUCH preferable to Analogue, and I say this having been on a digital service for four years now in Europe, and when having to deal with the hiss and crackle of a analogue service both when in Canada and the States, it really annoyed me.
As for the hacking, no it cannot happen on AMPS, but then of course with a cheap scanner, anyone can listen in on your calls.
All this new-fangled technology, it will never last!! End sarcasm.
How very typical of a politician to contradict himself in a single sentence. Does he mean that if he doesn't respect your lifestyle, he won't have to tolerate it? Sounds like the Criminal Justice Act all over again, but who is he wishing to persecute now? I don't believe for a moment that this is aimed at Organised Crime.
Okay until you find yourself allergic to certain data formations in the spice....
Cups of tea have been used for certain spaceship drives as well. Try this...
Is it?
~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But as is obvious from what I have said, sorry, but I can't make it gospel for you!
~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In response to some of your points:
1)It's absurd to compare illicit narcotics with caffeine.
Why? Because it is not illegal? Because it is in coffee? Caffeine is a very dangerous drugs in some cases, and the fact that you haven't had caffeine for more than a year now says that you realise that perhaps even though it is legal, it isn't necessarily good for you: doesn't the opposite premise come into play here as well: if it is illegal, then is it necessarily bad for you?
2)Can caffeine produce the same kind of effects as illicit narcotics?
Without a doubt. Why is it that a lot of 'fake' Ecstasy pills in Europe have a good dose of Caffeine in them only?
3)No, caffeine is not addictive. Strongly appealing, perhaps, but not addictive. Caffeine does not have the addictive properties of drugs.
There is two main definitions of addictive: physically and mentally. Heroin/Cocaine are physically addictive as well as mentally. Marijuana is mildly mentally addictive, and not physically addictive at all: in fact it is less addictive than chocolate, which acts on the same part of the brain. Caffeine is addictive, which is why so many people need their dose in the morning, me included.
Drugs do...[cause people to go rob stores/etc]
No, I don't disagree, but not *all* drugs, and certainly not *only* drugs. There has to be distinction made: a toker will not hold up a gas station in order to get his next ounce, whereas a crackhead won't think twice about it to get his next rock (or mod points). The ones that do manufacture won't need some website, there is plenty of people who know how to do it and will gladly do so.
Now about the Freedom of Speech thing: During Prohibition, were all books detailing how to make wine/beer/vodka destroyed? Should they have been? Because this is what you seem to be advocating. Or is it just particular non-scientific sites that should be taken down? In which case, if a paper from some University goes into detail of how to make a 'drug' should it be banned because of the content, and the fact that it is available to kids? Or is this legitimate research? It is still the information available.
Just because the law is there, does not make it right, and this is not about protecting the children, this is about government propaganda: you know no other side to a story, you have no choice but to listen to that side over and over again, and to paraphrase that German Propaganda minister, Goebels(sp?), Tell the people a lie enough times they believe it.
I didn't intend to flame, but I don't like people repeating a lot of government crap about WHICHEVER subject. I think that everyone should get informed and not rely on biased FUD.
~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~