It's debatable whether even a war can save an indebted economy.
Maybe 2,000 years ago, when the world was less crowded and resources less widely exploited, a good war would stave off economic collapse - the Roman invasion of Dacia (roughly modern day Romania) provided wealth in the shape of gold that far outstripped the cost of its acquisition, for example, but even then a top-heavy state, crippled by welfare (the provision of free grain to the inhabitants of Rome) and beset by rent-seeking among the political and military elite was bound to fail eventually, and it did so with the arrival of the Visigoths.
These days, the sheer cost of projecting power and the inherent inefficiency that comes with maintaining the means to project that power mean that any war runs the risk of beggaring the combatants for generations, never mind the potential for a nuclear or biological mishap.
Like you say - it's probably too late already, and the best solution for any individual is a piece of land, a water supply and sufficient protection for them and theirs.
The "democratically elected" government to which you refer was the last New Labour governement - only in power because of postal vote fraud, gerrymandering and the excessive number of Scottish seats in the Parliament.
Nothing that the last government did can be regarded as legitimate - they are up to their necks in extraordinary rendition, their history of anti-freedom legislation is there for all to see, and they rode roughshod over the remains of our constitution.
Until the laws enacted by New Labour are retracted in full, and their leaders tried for treason, there is no reason for any Briton to obey the law.
Not as intellectually dishonest as trying to equate copyright infringement with theft, or conflating copyright infringement with "organised crime" or "terrorism", as the copyright lobby has consistently done.
When these people face up to the fact that their business model is akin to monasteries claiming the right to license the right to print bibles because their scribes deserve a living, maybe they will see that they should be doing something else.
If that means that fewer Mission Impossible - XVI rehashes are made, then so be it - if something is worth creating, someone will create it and will find a way to make money from it without stretching the dubious logic of the legal system beyond its limits.
I have never "pirated" anything, nor would I do so, but to come down on the side of the parasitic and doomed rights holders rather than facing reality is frankly stupid.
From long experience, it's always best never to discuss costs with customers unless or until they ask you to do a foreigner for them. Then you ask them what they would pay your employers for the job and offer to do it for half that, in cash. Never fails;-)
If you think the UK is free from the scourge of lobbyists, think again.
They mostly rename it "PR" here, but that PR industry is worth around £7 billion per annum, and has its tentacles deep within the body politic, no matter which party you choose.
You can be sure that someone, somewhere is getting fat on this - if not now then via promises of jobs in the future.
They managed to spend money they didn't have on non-jobs the public didn't need, imposed illiberal and downright stupid legislation and enriched themselves at the expense of those who were unfortunate enough to live under their rule.
The bankers didn't have control of the BoE - what Labour did was worse, they took banking control away from the BoE (who knew how banks should be run) and gave it to their placemen at the FSA - very few of the BoE regulatory staff transferred over, most opting to take early retirement or private sector jobs.
The banks that failed were those run by Labour's friends - especially crooks like Goodwin, who wasn't even a banker.
The study was carried out on British civil servants.
The 10-year period covered by the study happens to coincide with the last Labour government, which leads me to propose the alternative hypothesis that having to implement really stupid policies with all their inherent contradictions leads to excessive wear and tear on the brain.
The moral? Socialism is bad for you, especially if you're one of the ones doling it out.
I still cling to the hope that a purely analytical proof of the four colour theorem exists, since such a thing would be undeniably a thing of beauty, which is, after all, the attraction of mathematics. Just because a combination of Cantor, Godel, Turing and Chaitin's work proves that some things are unprovable doesn't mean we should stop trying, does it?
Well, I've just re-read his comment, and still can't see how I've missed the point.
The research wasn't into solving sudoku puzzles (there is a simple mechanical method to do that, though it does require some guesswork and backtracking in many cases), it was into the possibility of a puzzle with only 16 clues and a unique solution existing.
Maybe you could elucidate for me what the point that I have missed was?
It's not the solving of the sudoku grid that is being done by "brute force" here, but the enumeration of possible solvable puzzles and the proof that no unique solutions exist for 16 clue puzzles.
It's actually quite instructive to write a sudoku solver - I did so myself a few years back when I decided to learn Python and needed a problem to work on.
There's a little more finesse involved than brute force;-)
No - there exist multiple solutions for up to 77 clues (81 -4), where a particular configuration of numbers exists:
1 x x 2 x x x x x
2 x x 1 x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x ...
or
2 x x 1 x x x x x
1 x x 2 x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x ...
(where the x's are the same in each configuration) are two distinct solutions, but the 77 x's are the same clues.
(Sorry - couldn't be bothered to fill the x's in!)
Pretty much like the proof of the four colour theorem, then. A really good proof would be able to show a solution for n dimensions, where n > 2, but all we have as a proof is an exhaustive enumeration of the possible networks in 2 dimensions. Most unsatisfying, to those of us who like to see analytical proofs that don't rely on mechanical methods, but there you go.
It's still a clever bit of work, and the technique may come in useful elsewhere, but I'd rather see a pencil and paper proof any day.
Really? You are happy for a bunch of wankers who criminalise the perfectly reasonable action of questioning the "holocaust" myth to pass more laws stopping people criticising of a bunch of crooks?
France should look to its past - the grandchildren of the collaborators are now in power (ask Shortarzy what his grandfather did in the war, and where the 2,000 Jews from the little town in Hungary where he was collaborator in chief went). The whole system is corrupt, and nobody will accept the truth that they are a morally bankrupt bunch of cunts who roll over for the Germans at every opportunity.
France also has a very different legal system from that which obtains in truly free and democratic nations - the Napoleonic law is a top-down system imposed by technocrats on the people, as opposed to the proper, Anglo-Saxon model where the people are first and foremost and laws are only enacted by consent.
I like France, and have spent many happy days and weeks there. But their legal system and political culture leaves much to be desired.
Don't fash yourself - the British Labour party very rarely communicates in coherent English these days. I see no reason why the transportees should differ.
Slashdot Mirror
But the $400K is based on Apple making huge margins by manufacturing their product in China, rather than the US.
If you added in the Chinese workforce on which the profit is based, the sums wouldn't look so good.
Based on productivity per worker, Bernie Madoff was a fucking God, until the accounting came.
It's debatable whether even a war can save an indebted economy.
Maybe 2,000 years ago, when the world was less crowded and resources less widely exploited, a good war would stave off economic collapse - the Roman invasion of Dacia (roughly modern day Romania) provided wealth in the shape of gold that far outstripped the cost of its acquisition, for example, but even then a top-heavy state, crippled by welfare (the provision of free grain to the inhabitants of Rome) and beset by rent-seeking among the political and military elite was bound to fail eventually, and it did so with the arrival of the Visigoths.
These days, the sheer cost of projecting power and the inherent inefficiency that comes with maintaining the means to project that power mean that any war runs the risk of beggaring the combatants for generations, never mind the potential for a nuclear or biological mishap.
Like you say - it's probably too late already, and the best solution for any individual is a piece of land, a water supply and sufficient protection for them and theirs.
The "democratically elected" government to which you refer was the last New Labour governement - only in power because of postal vote fraud, gerrymandering and the excessive number of Scottish seats in the Parliament.
Nothing that the last government did can be regarded as legitimate - they are up to their necks in extraordinary rendition, their history of anti-freedom legislation is there for all to see, and they rode roughshod over the remains of our constitution.
Until the laws enacted by New Labour are retracted in full, and their leaders tried for treason, there is no reason for any Briton to obey the law.
24 x 7? Only if Dunkin' Donuts deliver to said office...
Not as intellectually dishonest as trying to equate copyright infringement with theft, or conflating copyright infringement with "organised crime" or "terrorism", as the copyright lobby has consistently done.
When these people face up to the fact that their business model is akin to monasteries claiming the right to license the right to print bibles because their scribes deserve a living, maybe they will see that they should be doing something else.
If that means that fewer Mission Impossible - XVI rehashes are made, then so be it - if something is worth creating, someone will create it and will find a way to make money from it without stretching the dubious logic of the legal system beyond its limits.
I have never "pirated" anything, nor would I do so, but to come down on the side of the parasitic and doomed rights holders rather than facing reality is frankly stupid.
Spelling and writing comprehensible sentences might be useful, as well ';-)
Epic troll.
Could almost have come from some of the worst HR people I have had the misfortune to meet - congrats.
From long experience, it's always best never to discuss costs with customers unless or until they ask you to do a foreigner for them. Then you ask them what they would pay your employers for the job and offer to do it for half that, in cash. Never fails ;-)
If you think the UK is free from the scourge of lobbyists, think again.
They mostly rename it "PR" here, but that PR industry is worth around £7 billion per annum, and has its tentacles deep within the body politic, no matter which party you choose.
You can be sure that someone, somewhere is getting fat on this - if not now then via promises of jobs in the future.
15% of England certainly doesn't live in the leafy and expensive boroughs of Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea.
Nor are the Olympics being held there.
Good luck getting your free WiFi from Stratford, or anywhere east of Shoreditch.
Without a flour mill the raw grain is pretty much useless except as an animal feed, and all the animals were eaten last week.
Ever hear of a quern?
They're pretty useful, and it's normally not hard to find a couple of stones.
I think you'd call it "appropriate technology".
They managed to spend money they didn't have on non-jobs the public didn't need, imposed illiberal and downright stupid legislation and enriched themselves at the expense of those who were unfortunate enough to live under their rule.
The bankers didn't have control of the BoE - what Labour did was worse, they took banking control away from the BoE (who knew how banks should be run) and gave it to their placemen at the FSA - very few of the BoE regulatory staff transferred over, most opting to take early retirement or private sector jobs.
The banks that failed were those run by Labour's friends - especially crooks like Goodwin, who wasn't even a banker.
So yes - typical socialists.
The study was carried out on British civil servants.
The 10-year period covered by the study happens to coincide with the last Labour government, which leads me to propose the alternative hypothesis that having to implement really stupid policies with all their inherent contradictions leads to excessive wear and tear on the brain.
The moral? Socialism is bad for you, especially if you're one of the ones doling it out.
Thanks for that - very interesting.
I still cling to the hope that a purely analytical proof of the four colour theorem exists, since such a thing would be undeniably a thing of beauty, which is, after all, the attraction of mathematics. Just because a combination of Cantor, Godel, Turing and Chaitin's work proves that some things are unprovable doesn't mean we should stop trying, does it?
Well, I've just re-read his comment, and still can't see how I've missed the point.
The research wasn't into solving sudoku puzzles (there is a simple mechanical method to do that, though it does require some guesswork and backtracking in many cases), it was into the possibility of a puzzle with only 16 clues and a unique solution existing.
Maybe you could elucidate for me what the point that I have missed was?
It's not the solving of the sudoku grid that is being done by "brute force" here, but the enumeration of possible solvable puzzles and the proof that no unique solutions exist for 16 clue puzzles.
It's actually quite instructive to write a sudoku solver - I did so myself a few years back when I decided to learn Python and needed a problem to work on.
There's a little more finesse involved than brute force ;-)
No - there exist multiple solutions for up to 77 clues (81 -4), where a particular configuration of numbers exists:
1 x x 2 x x x x x
...
2 x x 1 x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
or
2 x x 1 x x x x x
...
1 x x 2 x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
(where the x's are the same in each configuration) are two distinct solutions, but the 77 x's are the same clues.
(Sorry - couldn't be bothered to fill the x's in!)
Just finished reading the full paper, and they have used some pretty neat tricks to minimise the computation needed.
So they haven't wasted time and money - they have produced a method for reducing the computation time for a whole class of related problems.
Not too bad for an investigation into a brain teaser, IMHO.
Pretty much like the proof of the four colour theorem, then. A really good proof would be able to show a solution for n dimensions, where n > 2, but all we have as a proof is an exhaustive enumeration of the possible networks in 2 dimensions. Most unsatisfying, to those of us who like to see analytical proofs that don't rely on mechanical methods, but there you go. It's still a clever bit of work, and the technique may come in useful elsewhere, but I'd rather see a pencil and paper proof any day.
That's for the French to decide for themselves.
Really? You are happy for a bunch of wankers who criminalise the perfectly reasonable action of questioning the "holocaust" myth to pass more laws stopping people criticising of a bunch of crooks?
France should look to its past - the grandchildren of the collaborators are now in power (ask Shortarzy what his grandfather did in the war, and where the 2,000 Jews from the little town in Hungary where he was collaborator in chief went). The whole system is corrupt, and nobody will accept the truth that they are a morally bankrupt bunch of cunts who roll over for the Germans at every opportunity.
France also has a very different legal system from that which obtains in truly free and democratic nations - the Napoleonic law is a top-down system imposed by technocrats on the people, as opposed to the proper, Anglo-Saxon model where the people are first and foremost and laws are only enacted by consent.
I like France, and have spent many happy days and weeks there. But their legal system and political culture leaves much to be desired.
Ah - the perpetual lament of the blind idealist.
"It will work next time, honest"
Santanyana hit the nail on the head when he said:
Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.
In Soviet Britain, Centres Shop You!
Couldn't resist ;-)
I wasn't aware the Sealed Knot were racist...
Oh, that Civil War!
Bringing in the OP's "mute" - maybe it should be "don't ask, don't tell"?
Don't fash yourself - the British Labour party very rarely communicates in coherent English these days. I see no reason why the transportees should differ.