They'd simply renegotiate trade at better (for them) terms
The EU needs the UK less than the UK needs the EU, and there will be political pressure to make the new trade agreements less favorable.
In the meantime,the UK has been getting a lot of US business because it's an English-speaking country with a large economy that's in the EU. The EU is a far larger market than the UK, so it's more important for businesses to have offices somewhere in the EU than the UK.
The Trump base is very significant, but hardly a majority, and it's getting smaller demographically. It's in something of a panic now that the world is changing in ways it doesn't like. I sympathize with some (not nearly all) of their concerns, but they're trying to turn the calendar back and that simply isn't going to work.
The media seems to be largely what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, except that there's less money in it and hence fewer big stories and exposes. It's not in a major decline. It always was like this. The difference is that there's lots of other sources of more or less news, and a large number of people have found the mainstream media saying things they don't like.
Christianity didn't have the concept of Holy War until exposed to Islamic Jihad.
Strange...I have distinct memories of reading of wars the Jews were commanded by God to wage, sometimes without mercy. At least some of these were described in the collection of books that became the Christian Bible.
If you know everyone else in the conversation, and know that they're good with such discussion, you can get away with religious discussion among people who don't agree. Workplaces are not safe places for that. You're likely not to know people's religions, and very likely not to know how they feel about someone disagreeing with theirs.
In my marriage, looking has always been OK, and it's been very solid. If a man finds it difficult to stick with his partner just from window-shopping, it wasn't that good a relationship in the first place.
My friends in the Christian Left would disagree with your statement. Leftists tend to be against most organized religion, and against religion playing a role in politics. Religion itself isn't that big a deal.
The Muslims were not the original invaders of that area. Very likely ancient Egypt wasn't the first either, but it's the earliest invader I can think of offhand. That area has seen invasion after invasion.
The Crusaders were in general not the people kicked out by Muslims, or even their descendants. The Crusades were entirely new invasions, spurred on by the prospect of junior sons who'd inherit nothing in Germany or France. One of them sacked Constantinople instead, so it probably wasn't just brown people.
Thing, is, who's paying that academic? Someone is, and frequently it's taxpayers, at least in part. Time spent editing a journal isn't time spent teaching or researching, and the academics I know work long hours in the first place. Just because it's the professor's job doesn't mean it's free; if it was, it would take up none of the professor's time.
Economies don't explode without regulation. There is always friction and negative feedback, and eventually those overcome the positive feedback. Unregulated economies might crash more, and are overall less efficient than properly regulated ones. Realistically, if I come up with a widget I can make inexpensively and that people want, the market will eventually become saturated. I could be incredibly wealthy by then, of course, but not infinitely so.
ISIS is somewhere between a religious and nationalistic movement. It isn't a result of rampant capitalism (although it's partly fueled by colonialism). The French Revolution was against the aristocracy and king, not capitalism. The Russian Revolution of October was a revolution against capitalism, but not a result of capitalism overload because Russia was not there yet. More advanced economies with more capitalism didn't revolt.
The question isn't whether centralized manufacturing is cheaper and faster; it's whether it's cheaper and faster enough. We do lots of things in less efficient ways because it's not that much more expensive, compared to our income.
I think that's a too limited definition of wealth. My car and my phone are far better than I could have gotten for the same (inflation-adjusted) price ten years ago. I have a Nook ereader with lots of books on it. It just gets more valuable as I acquire more books without taking more resources.
I'll try to be more clear. TV shows tend to feature sex and violence as generally desirable things to be wrapped up at the end of the episode, with no lasting consequences. (I may be somewhat out of date on this, since I've watched very limited TV recently.) In real life, they can have lasting and life-changing consequences.
The best way to try to avoid single motherhood is to not get pregnant without good reason to believe the guy will stick around and be part of the family. (There are circumstances in which it just happens, of course.) Condoms are pretty good for birth control, and limit the spread of certain unpleasant diseases also. In what TV I watched, they're almost never mentioned.
Not every main character on TV or in the movies will be a good role model. Not every person in life is a good role model. I have no idea what modern TV does with single mothers as main characters, how many there are, and what their treatment is.
I'd make that recommendation stronger. GP is showing symptoms of something that could be mild depression. GP should see a doctor., or, alternately, self-evaluate for depression. There's evaluation questions on the web.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at the article showing up here, because it has no nerd value.
There's things that can be said about distraction by electronic gizmos, but if a woman can't button a shirt all the way without deliberately focusing, the electronics are kinda lost in the noise.
Duh. First, the US is not the globe. Second, high local temperatures in the 1930s makes it harder to break records.
When you start measuring something, the first measurement is a record. The second is either a record high or a record low. Assuming no systemic change in the something, records get fewer and fewer. After ten measurements, a record high is higher than ten other measurements, which will happen sometimes. After a hundred, the record high has to be higher than a hundred other measurements, and that's going to be a lot rarer.
It really doesn't matter what the exact temperature is. It matters how it is changing. To measure global warming, we need consistent readings more than accurate ones. Adjusting buoy data to mimic ship data makes the readings a little less accurate, but much more comparable.
Microsoft beat Apple for a while by inheriting the IBM mantle, and by running on cheaper computers. The Macintosh couldn't run many programs, and was expensive.
Before IBM became dominant, there were lots of companies selling their own computers. Apple, Commodore, Atari, Radio Shack, to name a few. Exactly one of those survived without making PC clones: Apple. That's an impressive feat, and it's mostly due to usability.
Huh? Where do you get that? The original Macintosh GUI was revolutionary, and proved easier to use for a whole lot of people. It took the competition a long time to catch up in terms of discoverability and usability. (Very little in interfaces is intuitive. If the user can discover what he or she can do, and it makes sense so the user remembers it, that's the best we can do.)
The iPhone sold, even though it was lacking features, because the features it did have were easily usable. If you play with the buttons just a little, you'll know what they do and you will find it easy to remember. It's very discoverable.
Apple applications concentrated on not confusing the user with additional options. Given a CD or DVD writer, the average person won't know what rate to select, so why have it presented?
Slashdot Mirror
The EU needs the UK less than the UK needs the EU, and there will be political pressure to make the new trade agreements less favorable.
In the meantime,the UK has been getting a lot of US business because it's an English-speaking country with a large economy that's in the EU. The EU is a far larger market than the UK, so it's more important for businesses to have offices somewhere in the EU than the UK.
The Trump base is very significant, but hardly a majority, and it's getting smaller demographically. It's in something of a panic now that the world is changing in ways it doesn't like. I sympathize with some (not nearly all) of their concerns, but they're trying to turn the calendar back and that simply isn't going to work.
The media seems to be largely what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, except that there's less money in it and hence fewer big stories and exposes. It's not in a major decline. It always was like this. The difference is that there's lots of other sources of more or less news, and a large number of people have found the mainstream media saying things they don't like.
Strange...I have distinct memories of reading of wars the Jews were commanded by God to wage, sometimes without mercy. At least some of these were described in the collection of books that became the Christian Bible.
Today is a good day to die. I say we release into production.
If you know everyone else in the conversation, and know that they're good with such discussion, you can get away with religious discussion among people who don't agree. Workplaces are not safe places for that. You're likely not to know people's religions, and very likely not to know how they feel about someone disagreeing with theirs.
In my marriage, looking has always been OK, and it's been very solid. If a man finds it difficult to stick with his partner just from window-shopping, it wasn't that good a relationship in the first place.
My friends in the Christian Left would disagree with your statement. Leftists tend to be against most organized religion, and against religion playing a role in politics. Religion itself isn't that big a deal.
The Muslims were not the original invaders of that area. Very likely ancient Egypt wasn't the first either, but it's the earliest invader I can think of offhand. That area has seen invasion after invasion.
The Crusaders were in general not the people kicked out by Muslims, or even their descendants. The Crusades were entirely new invasions, spurred on by the prospect of junior sons who'd inherit nothing in Germany or France. One of them sacked Constantinople instead, so it probably wasn't just brown people.
Thing, is, who's paying that academic? Someone is, and frequently it's taxpayers, at least in part. Time spent editing a journal isn't time spent teaching or researching, and the academics I know work long hours in the first place. Just because it's the professor's job doesn't mean it's free; if it was, it would take up none of the professor's time.
Economies don't explode without regulation. There is always friction and negative feedback, and eventually those overcome the positive feedback. Unregulated economies might crash more, and are overall less efficient than properly regulated ones. Realistically, if I come up with a widget I can make inexpensively and that people want, the market will eventually become saturated. I could be incredibly wealthy by then, of course, but not infinitely so.
ISIS is somewhere between a religious and nationalistic movement. It isn't a result of rampant capitalism (although it's partly fueled by colonialism). The French Revolution was against the aristocracy and king, not capitalism. The Russian Revolution of October was a revolution against capitalism, but not a result of capitalism overload because Russia was not there yet. More advanced economies with more capitalism didn't revolt.
The question isn't whether centralized manufacturing is cheaper and faster; it's whether it's cheaper and faster enough. We do lots of things in less efficient ways because it's not that much more expensive, compared to our income.
I think that's a too limited definition of wealth. My car and my phone are far better than I could have gotten for the same (inflation-adjusted) price ten years ago. I have a Nook ereader with lots of books on it. It just gets more valuable as I acquire more books without taking more resources.
Things can get better without getting bigger.
In the early 90s, I said that this web thing would probably not catch on.
I'll try to be more clear. TV shows tend to feature sex and violence as generally desirable things to be wrapped up at the end of the episode, with no lasting consequences. (I may be somewhat out of date on this, since I've watched very limited TV recently.) In real life, they can have lasting and life-changing consequences.
The best way to try to avoid single motherhood is to not get pregnant without good reason to believe the guy will stick around and be part of the family. (There are circumstances in which it just happens, of course.) Condoms are pretty good for birth control, and limit the spread of certain unpleasant diseases also. In what TV I watched, they're almost never mentioned.
Not every main character on TV or in the movies will be a good role model. Not every person in life is a good role model. I have no idea what modern TV does with single mothers as main characters, how many there are, and what their treatment is.
I'd make that recommendation stronger. GP is showing symptoms of something that could be mild depression. GP should see a doctor., or, alternately, self-evaluate for depression. There's evaluation questions on the web.
Seriously, TFS said she has trouble buttoning a shirt without being distracted. The electronics are not the problem.
I'm not going to follow Trump tweets until my blood pressure is under better control. Works for me.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised at the article showing up here, because it has no nerd value.
There's things that can be said about distraction by electronic gizmos, but if a woman can't button a shirt all the way without deliberately focusing, the electronics are kinda lost in the noise.
Which conclusion was that? Was it from a scientist or a journalist or politician? What was the degree of confidence?
Duh. First, the US is not the globe. Second, high local temperatures in the 1930s makes it harder to break records.
When you start measuring something, the first measurement is a record. The second is either a record high or a record low. Assuming no systemic change in the something, records get fewer and fewer. After ten measurements, a record high is higher than ten other measurements, which will happen sometimes. After a hundred, the record high has to be higher than a hundred other measurements, and that's going to be a lot rarer.
It really doesn't matter what the exact temperature is. It matters how it is changing. To measure global warming, we need consistent readings more than accurate ones. Adjusting buoy data to mimic ship data makes the readings a little less accurate, but much more comparable.
Alternatively, it's the end of the world coming, and God will smite the people who don't believe just as they do. No worries.
Real-world objects can change. Young people might think a 1.4M floppy disk was a 3D-printed "save"icon.
If I buy a lottery ticket, I spend $1 or $2, and then I daydream about what I'd do with the money. It's cheap entertainment.
If I, as a manager, go for an open office, the productivity of my people goes down, and that's not cheap. Same for bringing out a worse interface.
Microsoft beat Apple for a while by inheriting the IBM mantle, and by running on cheaper computers. The Macintosh couldn't run many programs, and was expensive.
Before IBM became dominant, there were lots of companies selling their own computers. Apple, Commodore, Atari, Radio Shack, to name a few. Exactly one of those survived without making PC clones: Apple. That's an impressive feat, and it's mostly due to usability.
Huh? Where do you get that? The original Macintosh GUI was revolutionary, and proved easier to use for a whole lot of people. It took the competition a long time to catch up in terms of discoverability and usability. (Very little in interfaces is intuitive. If the user can discover what he or she can do, and it makes sense so the user remembers it, that's the best we can do.)
The iPhone sold, even though it was lacking features, because the features it did have were easily usable. If you play with the buttons just a little, you'll know what they do and you will find it easy to remember. It's very discoverable.
Apple applications concentrated on not confusing the user with additional options. Given a CD or DVD writer, the average person won't know what rate to select, so why have it presented?