That's because the backup camera in your 7 Series is a cheap POS. Use an NVG system and you'll have far better vision with the camera than your rearview mirror. If you can afford a 7 Series, you can afford NVG equipment; there's no excuse for that not to be standard on a car like that.
Did you not read my prior posts? We don't call them "cells" any more, as far as I can tell. That was only when they were fairly new. Now, most people just call them "phones", because they've entirely displaced other phone types (except in offices, which still use landlines, though personally I never use the desk phone in my cubicle; I use my cellphone for personal stuff and a USB headset for conference calls), or sometimes reverting to "cellphones" or "smartphones" when we need to distinguish, as I just did there.
As for pay phones, they've all but disappeared. I can't remember the last time I saw one. Sometimes I see payphone booths, but the actual phones have been ripped out, and no one's bothered to remove the booth yet (this is generally in older buildings/districts).
Yes, we do have shitty service and extortionate rates. That's a different issue. Last I heard, things aren't all rosy over there either, with the push towards privatization for things like the Royal Mail service, leading to shitty service and much higher rates. And for your buddies in Australia, things are positively out of control, with boycotting now illegal and private companies destroying the Great Barrier Reef. The Canadian government is going the same way. This all points to a complete and utter failure of the English form of government and all its descendants and offshoots.
Exactly. Heck, the whole healthcare thing is proof things are broken here; we shouldn't have an individual mandate at all, because it's the government forcing people to buy something from private companies. What we should have is the conservative regions can just have private healthcare like they obviously want, and the less-conservative regions can create systems that look more like Canada's or Britain's. But because no one can agree, we get the abomination that is Obamacare.
Same goes for gun issues. Places that don't like them should be able to ban them (which would be places like the northeast and the rust belt (this includes Chicago). Other places will either have a free-for-all (TX, southeast), or have more mild restrictions (CA).
Calling them mobiles differentiates from the other types of phones, mainly being pay phones and home phones (or landline).
"Pay phones"? Do you still have those over there? I remember seeing those decades ago when I was a kid. Do you still have rotary phones too? Or how about those phones that had no number at all, and you had to wind a knob to talk to the operator?
"Home phones"? Only old people still have landlines here. You guys still use those too? How quaint. Do you still have to turn a crank on your cars to start the engine too?
In a US break-up, there's no way Texas would stay with New York. In fact, I imagine the economy there would collapse after all the tech companies move to a west-coast stock exchange. There just isn't much that productive industry in the northeast; offhand, I can only think of pharmaceuticals, and some defense contractors. (And after a break-up, there probably wouldn't be as much demand for massively overpriced military hardware, esp. from a now-foreign country.)
Most of this sounds good to me, and you're absolutely right about HFCS and corn ethanol. I think that if the country broke apart, a lot of the "wedge issues" you see which people in different parts of the country would be settled very quickly (in different ways in different regions of course), and people would be able to move on to other things. Guns would be all banned in the northeast most likely, and most other places would adopt their own laws, and we'd be able to move on to other issues. Personally, I think splitting the US up into about 5 separate republics is the way to go: this would yield countries with a little over 60M people each, give or take, which is a pretty good size for a country (when you compare to the stronger European countries), but not too large, which is what we have now, and not too small (too small = little economic power).
As for collapse, the Soviet Union broke apart and it didn't collapse, things were actually much better in many parts afterwards. Just look at Poland and the Czech Republic now, compared to how they were under Soviet rule.
1. The removal of "u" from words that need it (Honour, favour, neighbour) and yes, "our" has a different sound to "or".
English is not a phonetic language with regular rules like German. After the Normans invaded, all that stuff went out the window. Every word simply needs to be memorized on its own. Some loose rules still apply, but there's no direct mapping of sounds to spellings any more. And with different accents, this is even more true now. In American English, "favor" closely fits how most people pronounce it.
2. The swapping of C's for S's in words like Defence.
See #1. "Defense" has an 's' sound at the end, so 's' works just fine.
4. The mangling of re into er (I.E. centre v center).
If you like French so much, just use French. "Center" fits the way it's pronounced.
5. Ain't isn't a word,
I've heard a lot of British people use that word actually, even internationally-known rock bands.
6. A "fanny" is an informal and crude a word for lady bits, not your arse.
Americans haven't used the word "fanny" for anything at all in decades, except maybe "fanny packs" (but no one uses those anymore either).
8. Chips are chips, not fries (we cant let the Belgians win on this one, they're close to the France, they speak French, they might as well be French and the French cant win).
You're the one that wants to stick to French-y spellings.
Besides, "chip" implies something hard and brittle, like potato chips, not something soft and flexible.
9. The season preceding Winter is called Autumn, fall is when nanna takes a tumble down the stairs.
"Fall" is shorter and simpler. Notice that a lot of American changes to the language make things shorter and simpler, hence the removal of unnecessary vowels. Which reminds me, your preference of "honour" again is similar to French.
10. Aluminum is the incorrect spelling of aluminium.
No, aluminum was the original spelling, and is closer to Latin. Have you forgotten about the other metallic elements, like ferrum, plumbum, stannum, aurum, argentum, cuprum, molybdenum, tantalum, platinum, hydragyrum, and lanthanum? Humphrey Davy originally named the element "aluminum"; it was later that others wanted to change the spelling to match other newly-discovered elements which had the "ium" ending. From Wikipedia:
Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina." But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."
The -ium suffix conformed to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802. The -um suffix is consistent with the universal spelling alumina for the oxide (as opposed to aluminia), as lanthana is the oxide of lanthanum, and magnesia, ceria, and thoria are the oxides of magnesium, cerium, and thorium respectively.
The spelling used throughout the 19th century by most U.S. chemists was aluminium, but common usage is less clear. The aluminum spelling is used in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828. In his advertising handbill for his new electrolytic method of producing the metal 1892, Charles Martin Hall used the -um spelling, despite his constant
The Israeli's try this all the time. Assassination by rocket fired from AH64. Despite Israeli intelligent being quite good (I.E. identifying when the target is home and vulnerable) quite a few of the assassinated turn up a few months later alive and well.
There's some problems with this comparison. Israel is fighting against "terrorists" (or whatever you choose to call them) who live in an economically depressed area, and don't have a lot of money (or if they do, they don't spend it on fancy mansions, they spend it on rockets and bombs instead). These people likely live in crappy multi-unit buildings with a bunch of other people who may or may not be related to them and their activities.
The cartels aren't like this; they aren't politically or religiously motivated. They're in it for the money, and surely they like to spend this money, on expensive cars, mansions, etc. Surely these cartel leaders aren't living in shitty apartment buildings alongside working-class people; they're in gated mansions with lots of fenced-off land around them. So how hard can it be to figure out if the guy is home or not, and then just blast the entire estate? If you kill a bunch of other people, who cares? They're all his associates and minions anyway. It's not like you need to shoot the guy while he's driving on a public street or something, and have to worry about killing any innocent people. The guy has to go home sometime.
Exactly. But I'm just some weirdo who believes in self-determination for people, and apparently this is an extremely unpopular mindset these days, at least in the US. Just look at what happens when anyone proposes secession. (And when I do it, I'm advocating the secession of the west coast tech states, so they can get away from the red states (and also the crappy northeast states like NY where the banksters are). But the liberals always get upset about this, because they think we need to forcibly keep all the states together no matter what, so they can bitch and whine when the voters in those states vote in ways they don't like. So I'm starting to come to the conclusion that many liberals (of the American variety) generally abhor self-determination and favor corruption of the government by the financial industry.)
Maybe, maybe not. Even if Apple took over 90% of the market, at least we'd never have to be subject to the Win32 API any more. And given the free and open availability of Linux and the *BSDs, any new "devils" would probably simply build on those, just as Apple did, rather than inventing a whole new monstrosity.
I'm "clinging" to my vision of a world without Windows and other MS software and all the crappiness and lock-in that entails (not to mention the horrid aesthetics brought in with the age of Metro).
Yes, but Sean Penn and other radical liberals apparently think that Spanish-speaking people should get priority over English-speaking people, so the Falklanders' right to self-determination is moot.
You need to get a better education. The US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. At the time they were desperate for cash.
I've never heard of the US trying to annex Cuba. Meddle and control its affairs the way it has other Latin American nations, sure, but not annex.
Florida joined the union just like lots of other states.
Hawaii, however, was a pretty ratty deal. They supposedly joined just like any state, but that was after it was basically taken over by American businesspeople. The native Hawaiians didn't have any real control by that point.
WTF are you talking about? You can transfer money for free from Paypal to a US bank account in 3-4 days via ACH transfer. You can also get a Paypal debit card for free, and spend the money from your Paypal account at any place that takes debit card or Mastercard (Paypal even gives you 1% cash back for doing this). You can also just request a paper check.
As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.
Lots of people disagree with you, including famous liberals like Sean Penn, who think the Falkland Islands should be returned to Argentina because they used to be part of Argentina until Britain took possession of them about 200 years ago.
Notice that something really big happened not too long before this announcement: Steve Ballmer was replaced as CEO. As long as he was at the helm, they held to their strategy of pushing Metro on everyone. Now he's gone, so things are likely to change.
This is really unfortunate IMO. I was hoping they'd double-down on Metro, maybe even eliminate the regular desktop mode. I was really enjoying watching MS stumble under Ballmer's leadership, and the last thing I want to see is them to become highly successful again.
Mostly right, except that the UK is made up of GB and Northern Ireland, not Ireland.
Apparently, according to my Wikipedia research, GB is called "Great" to distinguish it from Lesser Britain, or Brittania Minor, which we now call "Brittany", a region in France.
So, the term "the British Isles" includes both GB and Ireland (the island), but Ireland (the island) is not part of "Britain", that's reserved for the larger island, some other nearby islands, and part of France.
We Americans have our own ways of warping the language.
1. We drive on "parkways", and we park on "driveways". 2. "Bad" as in "This boom box is BAD, man!!!" 3. "My bad" 4. "Friend" as a verb 5. "Twerking" 6. "Hella"
Even going back in time a ways, there was: "How do you do?" How do you do what? Though I think this one was borrowed from the British, it sure took us long enough to finally shed it.
There's also cellphones. Here in the US, it was common to call them "cells" for a while, though people seem to just call them "phones" now (which makes the most sense). The British call them "mobiles", which doesn't make much sense since that's a toy you hang over an infant's bed.
It's worse. We have an immigration system that on one hand, brings in talented people in a way to exploit and discard them, yet on the other hand welcomes untalented people and their entire extended families and lets them live as moochers. We should be bringing in the best and brightest from other places and making it easy for them to stay here and contribute to our economy, and we should be trying to keep the worst and stupidest out.
Depends on what you mean by "British"; do you mean it as a political designator or a geographic one? Ireland (both the island and the country) is part of "the British Isles" (though not "Great Britain", the larger of the two main Isles), so anyone who lives in any of the British Isles, including Ireland, could be called "British" based on this. However, these days, "British" usually seems to refer to citizens (or is it "subjects"?) of the United Kingdom, which includes all of the British Isles except for Ireland the country (which is a subset of Ireland the island). I guess this sorta makes sense, since "UKer" isn't a very convenient term, so it's easier to just call them "British", just like "USian" sounds stupid and awkward, so those people are called "Americans" even though there's two continents with that name and the other inhabitants of those continents are not normally referred to by that demonym.
He wasn't totally clear about it, but he pointed to several big problems: 1) the policy that one immigrant can bring in his entire extended family 2) policies that allow immigrants to come in and then get welfare benefits instead of contributing to the system 3) policies which don't seem to favor immigrants with talent whatsoever
Slashdot Mirror
That's because the backup camera in your 7 Series is a cheap POS. Use an NVG system and you'll have far better vision with the camera than your rearview mirror. If you can afford a 7 Series, you can afford NVG equipment; there's no excuse for that not to be standard on a car like that.
Did you not read my prior posts? We don't call them "cells" any more, as far as I can tell. That was only when they were fairly new. Now, most people just call them "phones", because they've entirely displaced other phone types (except in offices, which still use landlines, though personally I never use the desk phone in my cubicle; I use my cellphone for personal stuff and a USB headset for conference calls), or sometimes reverting to "cellphones" or "smartphones" when we need to distinguish, as I just did there.
As for pay phones, they've all but disappeared. I can't remember the last time I saw one. Sometimes I see payphone booths, but the actual phones have been ripped out, and no one's bothered to remove the booth yet (this is generally in older buildings/districts).
Yes, we do have shitty service and extortionate rates. That's a different issue. Last I heard, things aren't all rosy over there either, with the push towards privatization for things like the Royal Mail service, leading to shitty service and much higher rates. And for your buddies in Australia, things are positively out of control, with boycotting now illegal and private companies destroying the Great Barrier Reef. The Canadian government is going the same way. This all points to a complete and utter failure of the English form of government and all its descendants and offshoots.
Exactly. Heck, the whole healthcare thing is proof things are broken here; we shouldn't have an individual mandate at all, because it's the government forcing people to buy something from private companies. What we should have is the conservative regions can just have private healthcare like they obviously want, and the less-conservative regions can create systems that look more like Canada's or Britain's. But because no one can agree, we get the abomination that is Obamacare.
Same goes for gun issues. Places that don't like them should be able to ban them (which would be places like the northeast and the rust belt (this includes Chicago). Other places will either have a free-for-all (TX, southeast), or have more mild restrictions (CA).
And we call them mobile phones, as mobility.
Tablets are also mobile. So are cars.
Calling them mobiles differentiates from the other types of phones, mainly being pay phones and home phones (or landline).
"Pay phones"? Do you still have those over there? I remember seeing those decades ago when I was a kid. Do you still have rotary phones too? Or how about those phones that had no number at all, and you had to wind a knob to talk to the operator?
"Home phones"? Only old people still have landlines here. You guys still use those too? How quaint. Do you still have to turn a crank on your cars to start the engine too?
In a US break-up, there's no way Texas would stay with New York. In fact, I imagine the economy there would collapse after all the tech companies move to a west-coast stock exchange. There just isn't much that productive industry in the northeast; offhand, I can only think of pharmaceuticals, and some defense contractors. (And after a break-up, there probably wouldn't be as much demand for massively overpriced military hardware, esp. from a now-foreign country.)
Most of this sounds good to me, and you're absolutely right about HFCS and corn ethanol. I think that if the country broke apart, a lot of the "wedge issues" you see which people in different parts of the country would be settled very quickly (in different ways in different regions of course), and people would be able to move on to other things. Guns would be all banned in the northeast most likely, and most other places would adopt their own laws, and we'd be able to move on to other issues. Personally, I think splitting the US up into about 5 separate republics is the way to go: this would yield countries with a little over 60M people each, give or take, which is a pretty good size for a country (when you compare to the stronger European countries), but not too large, which is what we have now, and not too small (too small = little economic power).
As for collapse, the Soviet Union broke apart and it didn't collapse, things were actually much better in many parts afterwards. Just look at Poland and the Czech Republic now, compared to how they were under Soviet rule.
1. The removal of "u" from words that need it (Honour, favour, neighbour) and yes, "our" has a different sound to "or".
English is not a phonetic language with regular rules like German. After the Normans invaded, all that stuff went out the window. Every word simply needs to be memorized on its own. Some loose rules still apply, but there's no direct mapping of sounds to spellings any more. And with different accents, this is even more true now. In American English, "favor" closely fits how most people pronounce it.
2. The swapping of C's for S's in words like Defence.
See #1. "Defense" has an 's' sound at the end, so 's' works just fine.
4. The mangling of re into er (I.E. centre v center).
If you like French so much, just use French. "Center" fits the way it's pronounced.
5. Ain't isn't a word,
I've heard a lot of British people use that word actually, even internationally-known rock bands.
6. A "fanny" is an informal and crude a word for lady bits, not your arse.
Americans haven't used the word "fanny" for anything at all in decades, except maybe "fanny packs" (but no one uses those anymore either).
8. Chips are chips, not fries (we cant let the Belgians win on this one, they're close to the France, they speak French, they might as well be French and the French cant win).
You're the one that wants to stick to French-y spellings.
Besides, "chip" implies something hard and brittle, like potato chips, not something soft and flexible.
9. The season preceding Winter is called Autumn, fall is when nanna takes a tumble down the stairs.
"Fall" is shorter and simpler. Notice that a lot of American changes to the language make things shorter and simpler, hence the removal of unnecessary vowels. Which reminds me, your preference of "honour" again is similar to French.
10. Aluminum is the incorrect spelling of aluminium.
No, aluminum was the original spelling, and is closer to Latin. Have you forgotten about the other metallic elements, like ferrum, plumbum, stannum, aurum, argentum, cuprum, molybdenum, tantalum, platinum, hydragyrum, and lanthanum? Humphrey Davy originally named the element "aluminum"; it was later that others wanted to change the spelling to match other newly-discovered elements which had the "ium" ending. From Wikipedia:
Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina." But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy's book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, "for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound."
The -ium suffix conformed to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium (all of which Davy isolated himself). Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the 16th century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802. The -um suffix is consistent with the universal spelling alumina for the oxide (as opposed to aluminia), as lanthana is the oxide of lanthanum, and magnesia, ceria, and thoria are the oxides of magnesium, cerium, and thorium respectively.
The spelling used throughout the 19th century by most U.S. chemists was aluminium, but common usage is less clear. The aluminum spelling is used in the Webster's Dictionary of 1828. In his advertising handbill for his new electrolytic method of producing the metal 1892, Charles Martin Hall used the -um spelling, despite his constant
Further more, after you begin bombing and killing civilians (yep, there will be civilian deaths)
No, there won't! This is the part you're not getting. There are no innocent civilians at remote gated mansions. You can bomb them with impunity.
You need to lose your hard on for war. They never work out as planned.
So what's your solution? Talk to the drug lords and convince them to change their ways?
The Israeli's try this all the time. Assassination by rocket fired from AH64.
Despite Israeli intelligent being quite good (I.E. identifying when the target is home and vulnerable) quite a few of the assassinated turn up a few months later alive and well.
There's some problems with this comparison. Israel is fighting against "terrorists" (or whatever you choose to call them) who live in an economically depressed area, and don't have a lot of money (or if they do, they don't spend it on fancy mansions, they spend it on rockets and bombs instead). These people likely live in crappy multi-unit buildings with a bunch of other people who may or may not be related to them and their activities.
The cartels aren't like this; they aren't politically or religiously motivated. They're in it for the money, and surely they like to spend this money, on expensive cars, mansions, etc. Surely these cartel leaders aren't living in shitty apartment buildings alongside working-class people; they're in gated mansions with lots of fenced-off land around them. So how hard can it be to figure out if the guy is home or not, and then just blast the entire estate? If you kill a bunch of other people, who cares? They're all his associates and minions anyway. It's not like you need to shoot the guy while he's driving on a public street or something, and have to worry about killing any innocent people. The guy has to go home sometime.
Exactly. But I'm just some weirdo who believes in self-determination for people, and apparently this is an extremely unpopular mindset these days, at least in the US. Just look at what happens when anyone proposes secession. (And when I do it, I'm advocating the secession of the west coast tech states, so they can get away from the red states (and also the crappy northeast states like NY where the banksters are). But the liberals always get upset about this, because they think we need to forcibly keep all the states together no matter what, so they can bitch and whine when the voters in those states vote in ways they don't like. So I'm starting to come to the conclusion that many liberals (of the American variety) generally abhor self-determination and favor corruption of the government by the financial industry.)
Maybe, maybe not. Even if Apple took over 90% of the market, at least we'd never have to be subject to the Win32 API any more. And given the free and open availability of Linux and the *BSDs, any new "devils" would probably simply build on those, just as Apple did, rather than inventing a whole new monstrosity.
I'm "clinging" to my vision of a world without Windows and other MS software and all the crappiness and lock-in that entails (not to mention the horrid aesthetics brought in with the age of Metro).
Yes, but Sean Penn and other radical liberals apparently think that Spanish-speaking people should get priority over English-speaking people, so the Falklanders' right to self-determination is moot.
You need to get a better education. The US purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867. At the time they were desperate for cash.
I've never heard of the US trying to annex Cuba. Meddle and control its affairs the way it has other Latin American nations, sure, but not annex.
Florida joined the union just like lots of other states.
Hawaii, however, was a pretty ratty deal. They supposedly joined just like any state, but that was after it was basically taken over by American businesspeople. The native Hawaiians didn't have any real control by that point.
WTF are you talking about? You can transfer money for free from Paypal to a US bank account in 3-4 days via ACH transfer. You can also get a Paypal debit card for free, and spend the money from your Paypal account at any place that takes debit card or Mastercard (Paypal even gives you 1% cash back for doing this). You can also just request a paper check.
As for Crimea being "part of Russia for 200 years prior to 1964", I bet one could find numerous areas where the same would hold true, I'd rather not have everyone running around annexing land simply because they held it half a century ago.
Lots of people disagree with you, including famous liberals like Sean Penn, who think the Falkland Islands should be returned to Argentina because they used to be part of Argentina until Britain took possession of them about 200 years ago.
No, he's not. Ballmer was the right guy. They need to bring him back, so I can enjoy watching him run MS into the ground.
Yeah, that's a real ringing endorsement there.
Notice that something really big happened not too long before this announcement: Steve Ballmer was replaced as CEO. As long as he was at the helm, they held to their strategy of pushing Metro on everyone. Now he's gone, so things are likely to change.
This is really unfortunate IMO. I was hoping they'd double-down on Metro, maybe even eliminate the regular desktop mode. I was really enjoying watching MS stumble under Ballmer's leadership, and the last thing I want to see is them to become highly successful again.
Mostly right, except that the UK is made up of GB and Northern Ireland, not Ireland.
Apparently, according to my Wikipedia research, GB is called "Great" to distinguish it from Lesser Britain, or Brittania Minor, which we now call "Brittany", a region in France.
So, the term "the British Isles" includes both GB and Ireland (the island), but Ireland (the island) is not part of "Britain", that's reserved for the larger island, some other nearby islands, and part of France.
What a mess.
WTF are you talking about?
We Americans have our own ways of warping the language.
1. We drive on "parkways", and we park on "driveways".
2. "Bad" as in "This boom box is BAD, man!!!"
3. "My bad"
4. "Friend" as a verb
5. "Twerking"
6. "Hella"
Even going back in time a ways, there was:
"How do you do?" How do you do what? Though I think this one was borrowed from the British, it sure took us long enough to finally shed it.
There's also cellphones. Here in the US, it was common to call them "cells" for a while, though people seem to just call them "phones" now (which makes the most sense). The British call them "mobiles", which doesn't make much sense since that's a toy you hang over an infant's bed.
It's worse. We have an immigration system that on one hand, brings in talented people in a way to exploit and discard them, yet on the other hand welcomes untalented people and their entire extended families and lets them live as moochers. We should be bringing in the best and brightest from other places and making it easy for them to stay here and contribute to our economy, and we should be trying to keep the worst and stupidest out.
Depends on what you mean by "British"; do you mean it as a political designator or a geographic one? Ireland (both the island and the country) is part of "the British Isles" (though not "Great Britain", the larger of the two main Isles), so anyone who lives in any of the British Isles, including Ireland, could be called "British" based on this. However, these days, "British" usually seems to refer to citizens (or is it "subjects"?) of the United Kingdom, which includes all of the British Isles except for Ireland the country (which is a subset of Ireland the island). I guess this sorta makes sense, since "UKer" isn't a very convenient term, so it's easier to just call them "British", just like "USian" sounds stupid and awkward, so those people are called "Americans" even though there's two continents with that name and the other inhabitants of those continents are not normally referred to by that demonym.
He wasn't totally clear about it, but he pointed to several big problems:
1) the policy that one immigrant can bring in his entire extended family
2) policies that allow immigrants to come in and then get welfare benefits instead of contributing to the system
3) policies which don't seem to favor immigrants with talent whatsoever